LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


PRINCETON,    N.    J. 


Division ;0..0  «--  30o 

Section aV:^Z7 

1B87 


^^m 


.^5 


THEOLOGICAL   EDUCATOR. 


Edited  by  the 

REV.     W.     ROBERTSON     NICOLL,     M.A. 

Editor  of  "  The  Expositor." 


PROFESSOR     WARFIEtaS 
TEXTUAL  CRITICISM  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


NEW    YORK : 
THOMAS     WHITTAKER, 

2    AND   3,    BIBLE   HOUSE. 
1887. 


^ 


■^-7<><-^t:^  ^^-g^^^^^^^-^^-"^ ' 


AN     INTRODUCTIOW^X 


^  JUL    .q   10^9 
TEXTUAL    CRITI  6^^,- .^  stV\V*^ 


OF   THE 


NEW    TESTAMENT. 


BY    THE    REV. 


BENJAMIN    B,   WARFIELD,    D.D., 

Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Thcologieal  Seminary^  Princetown, 
New  Jersey,   U.S.A. 


NEW    YORK: 
THOMAS     WHITTAKER, 

2    AND   3,    BIBLE   HOUSE. 

1887. 


PEEFACE. 


npmS  little  treatise  purports  to  be  a  primer,  and 
-L  a  primer  to  the  art  of  textual  criticism  rather 
than  to  the  science.  Its  purpose  will  be  served  if 
the  reader  is  prepared  by  it  to  exercise  the  art  in 
the  usual  processes,  and  to  enter  upon  the  study 
of  the  science  in  such  books  as  Dr.  Hort's  "  In- 
troduction," and  Dr.  Gregory's  "Prolegomena"  to 
Tischendorf's  eighth  edition.  In  such  a  primary 
treatise,  and  where  no  claim  to  originality  is  made, 
obligations  to  previous  works  can  scarcely  be  acknow- 
ledged. The  author  hopes  that  his  general  confession 
of  having  made  use  of  everything  that  he  could  lay 
his  hands  upon  that  served  his  purpose,  will  be 
deemed  sufficient  acknowledgment  of  the  many  debts 
he  is  conscious  of,  and  would  like,  if  occasion  served, 
to  confess  in  detail. 

Allegheny,  Midsummer  188G. 


CONTENTS. 


Pi.SB 

Introductory 1 


CHAPTER   T 
The  Matter  of  Criticism 16 

CHAPTER  II. 
The  Methods  of  Criticism  ......    82 

CHAPTER   III. 
The  Praxis  of  Criticism 182 

CHAPTER   IV. 
The  History  of  Criticism 211 


INTRODUCTORY. 


T 


HE  word  ''text"  properly  denotes  a  literary 
work,  conceived  of  as  a  mere  thing,  as  a 
texture  woven  of  words  instead  of  threads.  It 
designates  neither,  on  the  one  side,  the  book  which 
contains  the  text,  nor,  on  the  other  side,  the  sense 
which  the  text  conveys.  It  is  not  the  matter  of 
the  discourse,  nor  the  manner  of  it,  whether  logical, 
rhetorical,  or  grammatical.  It  is  simply  the  web  of 
words  itself.  It  is  with  this  understanding  that  the 
text  of  any  work  is  concisely  defined  as  the  ijysissima 
verha  of  that  work. 

The  word,  which  came  into  Middle  English  from 
the  French  where  it  stands  as  the  descendant  of  the 
Latin  word  textum,  retains  in  English  the  figurative 
sense  only  of  its  primitive,  yet  owes  it  to  its  origin 
that  it  describes  a  composition  as  a  woven  thing,  as  a 
curiously  interwoven  cloth  or  tissue  of  words.  Once  a 
part  of  the  English  language,  it  has  grown  with  the 
growth  of  that  tongue,  and  has  acquired  certain  special 
usages.  We  usually  need  to  speak  of  the  exact  words 
of  an  author  only  in  contrast  with  something  else,  and 
thus  "  text "  has  come  to  designate  a  composition 
upon  which  a  commentary  has  been  written,  so  that 
it  distinguishes  the  words  commented  on  from  the 

1 


2  TEXTUAL   CBITICISM. 

comments  that  have  been  added.  Thus  we  speak  of 
the  text  of  the  Talmud  as  lost  in  the  comment.  And 
thus,  too,  by  an  extreme  extension,  we  speak  of  the 
text  of  a  sermon,  meaning,  not  the  ipsissima  verba 
of  the  sermon,  but  the  little  piece  of  the  original 
author  on  which  the  sermon  professes  to  be  a  com- 
ment. By  a  somewhat  similar  extension  we  speak  of 
texts  of  Scripture,  meaning,  not  various  editions  of  its 
ijjsissima  verba,  but  brief  extracts  from  Scripture,  as 
for  example  proof  texts  and  the  like  ; — a  usage  which 
appears  to  have  grown  up  under  the  conception  that 
all  developed  theology  is  of  the  nature  of  a  comment 
on  Scripture.  Such  secondary  senses  of  the  word 
need  not  disturb  us  here.  They  are  natural  develop- 
ments out  of  the  ground  meaning,  as  applied  to 
special  cases.  We  are  to  use  the  word  in  its  general 
and  original  sense,  in  which  it  designates  the  ijjsissima 
verba,  the  woven  web  of  words,  which  constitutes  the 
concrete  thing  by  which  a  book  is  made  a  work,  but 
which  has  nothing  directly  to  do  with  the  sense, 
correctness,  or  the  value  of  the  work. 

There  is  an  important  distinction,  however,  which 
we  should  grasp  at  the  outset,  between  the  text  of  a 
document  and  the  text  of  a  work.  A  document  can 
have  but  one  text ;  its  ipsissima  verba  are  its  ipsissima 
verba,  and  there  is  nothing  further  to  say  about  it. 
But  a  work  may  exist  in  several  copies,  each  of  which 
has  its  own  ipsissima  verba,  which  may,  or  may  not, 
tally  with  one  another.  The  text  of  any  copy  of 
Shakespeare  that  is  placed  in  my  hands  is  plainly 
before  me.  But  the  text  of  Shakespeare  is  a  different 
matter.     No  two  copies  of  ShakespearCj — or  now,  since 


INTBODUCTOBY.  3 

we  have  to  reckon  with  the  printing  press,  we  must 
rather  say  no  two  editions, — have  precisely  the  same 
text.     There  are  all  kinds  of  causes  that  w^ork  differ- 
ences :  badness  of  copy,   carelessness  of  compositors, 
folly  of  editors,  imperfection  of  evidence,  frailty   of 
huma.nity.     We  know  what  the  text  of  Karl  Elze's 
Hamlet  is.     But  what  is  the  text  of  Hamlet  1     We 
cannot  choose  any  one  edition,  and  say  that  it  is  the 
text  of  Hamlet;  it  is  one  text    of  Hamlet,  but  not 
necessarily  the  text  of  Hamlet.      We  cannot  choose 
one  manuscript  of  Homer,  and  say  that  it  is  the  text 
of  Homer.     It  is  a  text  of  Homer,  but  the  text  of 
Homer  may  be  something  very  different.     We  note, 
then,  that  the  text  of  a  document  and  the  text  of  a 
work  may  be  very  different  matters.     The  text  of  a 
document  is  the  ijjsissima  verba  of  that  document,  and 
is  to  be  had  by  simply  looking  at  it ;  whatever  stands 
actually  written  in  it  is  its  text.     The  text  of  a  work, 
again,  is  the  ipsissima  verba  of  that  work,  but  it  cannot 
be  obtained  by  simply  looking  at  it.     We  cannot  look 
at  the  work,  but  only  at  the  documents  or  "copies" 
that  represent  it ;  and  what  stands  written  in  them, 
individually   or   even  collectively,    may  not  be    the 
ij^sissima  verba  of  the  work, — by  exactly  the  amount, 
in  each  case,  in  which  it  is  altered  or  corrupted  from 
what  the  author  intended  to  MT.ite,  is  not  the  ijjsissima 
vei'ba  of  the  work.     If,  then,  the  text  of  a  document 
or  copy  of  any  work  is  the  ipsissima  verba  of  that 
document  or  copy,  the  text  of  the  work  is  what  ought 
to  be  the  ijysissima   verba  of  all  the   documents  or 
copies  that  profess  to  represent  it, — it  is  the  original, 
or^  better  stilly  the  intended    ipsissitna  verba  of  th^ 


4  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

author.  It  may  not  lie  in  the  document  before  us, 
or  in  any  document.  All  existing  documents,  taken 
collectively,  may  fail  to  contain  it.  It  may  never 
have  lain,  perfect  and  pure,  in  any  document.  But 
if  an  element  of  ideality  thus  attaches  to  it,  it  is 
none  the  less  a  very  real  thing  and  a  very  legitimate 
object  of  search.  It  is  impossible,  no  doubt,  to  avoid 
a  certain  looseness  of  speech,  by  which  we  say,  for 
example,  "  The  text  of  Nonius  is  in  a  very  bad  state  ;  " 
and  thus  identify  the  text  of  a  work  with  some 
transitory  state  of  it,  or  it  may  be  with  the  perma- 
nent loss  of  it.  What  we  mean  is  that  the  text  in 
this  or  that  document  or  edition,  or  in  all  existing 
documents  or  editions,  is  a  very  bad  and  corrupt  repre- 
sentation of  the  text  of  Nonius, — is  not  the  text  of 
Nonius  at  all,  in  fact,  but  departs  from,  and  fails  to  be, 
that  in  many  particulars.  The  text  of  Nonius,  in  a 
word,  is  just  what  we  have  not  and  are  in  search  of. 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the  text  of  a  work  as 
distinsfuished  from  the  text  of  a  document  can  be  had 
only  through  a  critical  process.  What  is  necessary 
for  obtaining  it  is  a  critical  examination  of  the  texts 
of  the  various  documents  that  lie  before  us  as  its 
representatives,  with  a  view  to  discovering  from  them 
whether  and  wherein  it  has  become  corrupted,  and  of 
proving  them  to  preserve  it  or  else  restoring  it  from 
their  corruptions  to  its  originally  intended  form. 
This  is  what  is  meant  by  "  textual  criticism,"  which 
may  be  defined  as  the  careful,  critical  examination 
of  a  text,  with  a  view  to  discovering  its  condition,  in 
order  that  we  may  test  its  correctness  on  the  one 
hand,   and,   on   the   other,   emend  its  errors. 


INTRODUCTORY.  5 

Obviously  this  is,  if  not  a  bold  and  unsafe  kind 
of  work,  yet  one  sufficiently  nice  to  engage  our  best 
powers.  It  is  not,  however,  so  unwonted  a  procedure 
as  it  may  seem  at  first  sight ;  and  more  of  us  than 
suspect  it  are  engaged  in  it  daily.  Whenever,  for 
instance,  we  make  a  correction  in  the  margin  of  a 
book  we  chance  to  be  reading,  because  we  observe 
a  misplaced  letter  or  a  misspelled  word,  or  any  other 
obvious  typographical  error,  we  are  engaging  in  pro- 
cesses of  textual  criticism.  Or,  perhaps,  we  receive  a 
letter  from  a  friend,  read  it  carefully,  suddenly  come 
upon  a  sentence  that  puzzles  us,  observe  it  more 
closely,  and  say,  "  Oh,  I  see  !  a  word  has  been  left  out 
here !  "  There  is  no  one  of  us  who  has  not  had  this 
experience,  or  who  has  not  supplied  the  word  which 
he  determines  to  be  needed,  and  gone  on  satisfied. 
Let  us  take  an  apposite  example  or  two  from  printed 
books.  When  we  read  in  Archdeacon  Farrar's 
Messages  of  the  Books  (p.  145,  note  i)  :  ''That  God 
chose  His  own  fit  instruments  "  for  writing  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  "  and  that  the  sacredness  of  the 
books  was  due  to  the  prior  position  of  these  writers 
is  clear  from  the  fact  that  only  four  of  the  writers 
were  apostles "  —  few  of  us  will  hesitate  to  insert 
the  "not"  before  "due,"  the  lack  of  which  throws  the 
sentence  into  logical  confusion.  So,  when  we  read 
in  the  admirable  International  Revision  Commentary 
on  John's  Gospel,  by  Drs.  Milligan  and  Moulton 
(p.  341):  "Yet  we  should  overlook  the  immediate 
reference,"  the  context  tells  us  at  once  that  a  "  not  " 
has  been  omitted  before  "  overlook."  In  an  edition 
of  King  James'  Bible,  printed  by  Barker  &  Bill,  in 


6  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

1631,  men  read  the  seventh  commandment  (Exod. 
XX.  14):  "Thou  shalt  commit  adultery,"  not  ^Aiithout 
perceiving,  we  may  be  sure,  that  a  "  not  "  had  fallen 
out,  and  mentally  replacing  it  all  the  more  emphatic- 
ally that  it  was  not  there.  But  all  this  is  textual 
criticism  of  the  highest  and  most  delicate  kind.  We 
have,  in  each  case,  examined  the  text  before  us 
critically,  determined  that  it  was  in  error,  and  restored 
the  originally  intended  text  by  a  critical  process. 
Yet  we  do  all  this  confidently,  with  no  feeling  that  we 
are  trenching  on  learned  ground,  and  with  results  that 
are  entirely  satisfactory  to  ourselves,  and  on  wdiich 
we  are  willing  to  act  in  business  or  social  life.  The 
cases  that  have  been  adduced  involve,  indeed,  the  very 
nicest  and  most  uncertain  of  the  critical  processes  : 
they  are  all  samples  of  what  is  called  ''  conjectural 
emendation" — i.e.,  the  text  has  been  emended  in  each 
case  by  pure  conjecture,  the  context  alone  hinting 
that  it  was  in  error  or  suggesting  the  remedy.  The 
dangers  that  attend  the  careless  or  uninstructed  use 
of  so  delicate  an  instrument  are  well  illustrated  by 
a  delightful  story  (w^hich  Mr.  Frederic  Harrison 
attributes  to  Mr.  Andrew  Lang)  of  a  printer  who 
found  in  his  "  copy  "  some  reference  to  "  the  Scapin 
of  Poquelin."  The  printer  was  not  a  pedant ;  Moliere 
he  knew,  but  who  was  Poquelin  1  At  last  a  bright 
idea  struck  his  inventive  mind,  and  he  printed  it : 
"the  Scapin  of  M.  Coqitelin."  This  is  "conjectural 
emendation  "  too ;  and  unhappily  it  is  the  type  of 
a  great  part  of  what  is  called  by  that  name. 

In  this  higher  way  every  reader  of  books  is  a  textual 
critic.     In  a  lower  way,  every  proof-reader  is  a  textual 


INTRODUCTORY.  7 

critic;  for  the  correction  of  a  text  that  lies  before  him 
by  the  readings  of  another,  given  him  as  a  model, 
is  simply  the  lowest  variety  of  this  art.  The  art  of 
textual  criticism  is  thus  seen  to  be  the  art  of  detecting 
and  emending  errors  in  documents.  The  science  is 
the  orderly  discussion  and  systematisation  of  the 
principles  on  which  this  art  ought  to  proceed. 

The  inference  lies  very  close,  from  what  has  been 
said,  that  the  sphere  of  the  legitimate  application  of 
textual  criticism  is  circumscribed  only  by  the  bounds 
of  written  matter.  Such  are  the  limitations  of 
human  powers  in  reproducing  writings,  that  appa- 
rently no  lengthy  writing  can  be  duplicated  without 
error.  Nay,  such  are  the  limitations  of  human 
powers  of  attention,  that  probably  few  manuscripts 
of  any  extent  are  written  exactly  correctly  at  first 
hand.  The  author  himself  fails  to  put  correctly  on 
paper  the  words  that  lie  in  his  mind.  And  even 
when  the  document  that  lies  before  us  is  written  with 
absolutely  exact  correctness,  it  requires  the  applica- 
tion of  textual  criticism,  i.e.,  a  careful  critical  ex- 
amination, to  discover  and  certify  this  fact.  Let  us 
repeat  it,  then :  wherever  written  matter  exists, 
textual  criticism  is  not  only  legitimate,  but  an  un- 
avoidable task ;  when  the  writing  is  important,  such 
as  a  deed,  or  a  will,  or  a  charter,  or  the  Bible,  it  is 
an  indefeasible  duty.  No  doubt,  differences  may  exist 
between  writings,  in  their  nature  or  the  conditions 
under  which  they  were  produced  or  transmitted,  which 
may  demand  for  them  somewhat  different  treatments. 
The  conditions  under  which  a  work  is  transmitted  by 
the  printing  press  differ  materially  from  those  under 


8  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM, 

which  one  is  transmitted  by  hand -copying  ;  and  the 
practice  of  textual  criticism  may  be  affected  by  this 
difference.  One  work  may  lie  before  us  in  a  single 
copy,  another  in  a  thousand  copies,  and  differences 
may  thence  arise  in  the  processes  of  criticism  that  are 
applicable  to  them.  But  all  writings  have  this  in 
common  :  they  are  all  open  to  criticism,  and  are  all 
to  be  criticised.  An  autograph  writing  is  open  to 
criticism ;  we  must  examine  it  to  see  whether  the 
writer's  hand  has  been  faultless  handmaid  to  his 
thought,  and  to  correct  his  erroneous  writing  of  what 
he  intended.  A  printed  work  is  open  to  criticism  : 
Ave  must  examine  it  to  see  what  of  the  aimless  altera  • 
tion  that  has  been  wrought  by  a  compositor's  nimble 
but  not  infallible  fingers,  and  what  of  the  foolish 
alteration  which  the  semi-unconscious  working  of  his 
mind  has  inserted  into  his  copy,  the  proof-reader  has 
allowed  to  stand.  A  writing  propagated  by  manu- 
script is  especially  open  to  criticism  :  here  so  many 
varying  minds,  and  so  many  varying  hands,  have 
repeated  each  its  predecessor's  errors,  and  invented 
new  ones,  that  criticism  must  dig  through  repeated 
strata  of  corruption  on  corruption  before  it  can  reach 
the  bed-rock  of  truth. 

Nor  is  the  arc  a  wide  one  thi-ough  which  even  the 
processes  of  criticism  which  are  applicable  to  these 
various  kinds  of  writings  can  librate.  The  existence 
of  corruptions  in  a  writing  can  be  suggested  to  us  by 
only  two  kinds  of  evidence.  One  of  these  is  illus- 
trated by  our  detection  of  misprints  in  the  books 
we  read  or  of  errors  in  the  letters  we  receive.  The 
most   prominent    form   of    it  is  the  evidence   of  the 


INTRODUCTORY.  9 

context  or  general  sense ;  to  this  is  to  be  added,  as  of 
the  same  generic  kind,  the  evidence  of  the  style, 
vocabulary  or  usage  of  the  author,  or  of  the  time  in 
which  he  wrote,  and  the  like, — all  the  evidence,  in  a 
word,  that  arises  from  the  consideration  of  what  the 
author  is  likely  to  have  written.  The  name  that  is 
given  to  this  is  hiternal  evidence,  and  it  is  the  only 
kind  of  evidence  that  is  available  for  an  autographic 
writing,  or  any  other  that  exists  only  in  a  single 
copy.  But  if  two  or  more  copies  are  extant,  another 
kind  of  evidence  becomes  available.  We  may  com- 
pare the  copies  together,  and  wherever  they  differ 
one  or  the  other  testimony  is  certainly  at  fault,  and 
critical  examination  and  reconstruction  is  necessary. 
This  is  external  evidence.  When  we  proceed  from 
the  detection  of  error  to  its  correction,  we  remain 
dependent  on  these  same  two  kinds  of  evidence — 
internal  and  external.  But  internal  evidence  splits 
here  into  two  well-marked  and  independent  varieties, 
much  to  our  help.  We  may  appeal  to  the  evidence  of 
the  context  or  other  considerations  that  rest  on  the 
question.  What  is  the  author  likely  to  have  written? 
to  suggest  to  us  what  ought  to  stand  in  the  place 
where  a  corruption  is  suspected  or  known ;  and  this 
is  called  intrinsic  (inter7ial)  evide7ice.  Or  we  may 
appeal  to  the  fortunes  of  reproduction,  to  the  known 
habits  of  stoue-cutters,  copyists,  or  compositors,  to 
suggest  what  the  reading  or  readings  known  or  sus- 
pected to  be  corruptions  may  have  grown  out  of,  or 
what  reading,  on  the  supposition  of  its  originality, 
will  account  best  for  the  origin  of  all  others;  and 
this  is  called  tra^iscriiHional  (internal)  evidence.     On 


10  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

the  other  hand,  we  may  collate  all  known  copies,  and 
appeal  to  the  evidence  that  a  great  majority  of  them 
have  one  reading,  and  only  a  few  the  others ;  or  all  the 
good  and  careful  ones  have  one,  and  only  the  bad  the 
others ;  or  several  derived  from  independent  sources 
have  one,  and  only  such  as  can  be  shown  to  come  from 
a  single  fountain  have  the  others;  and  so  marshal 
the  external  evidence.  If  we  allow  for  their  broad  and 
inadequate  statement,  proper  to  this  summary  treat- 
ment, we  may  say  that  it  matters  not  whether  the 
writing  before  us  be  a  letter  from  a  friend,  or  an 
inscription  from  Carchemish,  or  a  copy  of  a  morning 
newspaper,  or  Shakespeare,  or  Homer,  or  the  Bible,  these 
and  only  these  are  the  kinds  of  evidence  applicable. 
And  so  far  as  they  are  applicable  they  are  valid.  It 
would  be  absurd  to  apply  them  to  Homer,  and  refuse 
to  apply  them  to  Herodotus  ;  to  apply  them  to  Nonius, 
whose  text  is  proverbially  corrupt,  and  refuse  to  apply 
them  to  the  New  Testament,  the  text  of  which  is  in- 
comparably correct.  It  is  by  their  application  alone 
that  we  know  what  is  corrupt  and  what  is  correct ; 
and  if  it  is  right  to  apply  them  to  a  secular  book,  it 
is  right  to  apply  them  to  a  sacred  one— nay,  it  is 
Avrong  not  to. 

It  is  clear,  moreover,  that  the  duty  of  applying 
textual  criticism — say,  for  instance,  to  the  New  Tes- 
tament— is  entirely  independent  of  the  number  of 
errors  in  its  ordinarily  current  text  which  criticism 
may  be  expected  to  detect.  It  is  as  important  to 
certify  ourselves  of  the  correctness  of  our  text  as  it  is 
to  correct  it  if  erroneous ;  and  the  former  is  as  much 
the  function  of  criticism  as  the  latter.     Nor  is  textual 


INTRODUCTORY.  11 

error  to  be  tliought  to  be  commensurable  with  error  in 
sense.  The  text  conveys  the  sense ;  but  the  textual 
critic  has  nothing  to  do,  primarily,  with  the  sense. 
It  is  for  him  to  restore  the  text,  and  for  the  inter- 
preter who  follows  him  to  reap  the  new  meaning. 
Divergencies  which  leave  the  sense  wholly  unaffected 
may  be  to  him  very  substantial  errors.  It  is  even 
possible  that  he  may  find  a  copy  painfully  corrupt, 
from  which,  nevertheless,  precisely  the  same  sense 
flows  as  if  it  had  been  written  with  perfect  accuracy. 
It  is  of  the  deepest  interest,  nevertheless,  to  inquire, 
even  with  this  purely  textual  meaning,  how  much 
correction  the  texts  of  the  New  Testament  in  general 
circulation  need  before  they  are  restored  substantially 
to  their  original  form.  The  reply  will  necessarily 
vary  according  to  the  standard  of  comparison  which 
we  assume.  If  we  take  an  ordinarily  well  printed 
modern  book  as  a  standard,  the  ISTew  Testament,  in  its 
commonly  current  text,  will  appear  sorely  corrupt. 
This  is  due  to  the  different  conditions  under  which  an 
ancient  and  a  modern  book  come  before  a  modern 
audience.  The  repeated  proof-correcting  by  expert 
readers  and  author  alike  in  a  modern  printing-office 
as  preliminary  to  the  issue  of  a  single  copy ;  the 
ability  to  issue  thousands  of  identical  copies  from  the 
same  plates ;  the  opportunities  given  to  correct  the 
plates  for  new  issues,  so  that  each  new  issue  is  sure  to 
be  an  improvement  on  the  last :  all  this  conspires  to 
the  attainment  of  a  very  high  degree  of  accuracy. 
But  in  ancient  times  each  copy  was  slowly  and  pain- 
fully made,  independently  of  all  others;  each  copy 
necessarily  introduced  its  own  special  errors  besides 


12  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

repeating  those  of  its  predecessor;  each  fresh  copy 
that  was  called  for,  instead  of  being  struck  oiT  from 
the  old  and  now  newly  corrected  plates,  was  made 
laboriously  and  erroneously  from  a  previous  one, 
perpetuating  its  errors,  old  and  new,  and  introducing 
still  newer  ones  of  its  own  manufacture.  A  long  line 
of  ancestry  gradually  grows  up  behind  each  copy  in 
such  circumstances,  and  the  race  gradually  but 
inevitably  degenerates,  until,  after  a  thousand  years 
or  so,  the  number  of  fixed  errors  becomes  considerable. 
When  at  last  the  printing  press  is  invented,  and  the 
work  put  through  it,  not  the  author's  autograph,  but 
the  latest  manuscript  is  printer's  copy,  and  no  author's 
eye  can  overlook  the  sheets.  The  best  the  press  can 
do  is  measurably  to  stop  the  growth  of  coiTuption  and 
faithfully  to  perpetuate  all  that  has  already  grown. 
No  wonder  that  the  current  New  Testament  text  must 
be  adjudged,  in  comparison  with  a  well  printed  modern 
book,  extremely  corrupt. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  we  compare  the  present  state 
of  the  New  Testament  text  with  that  of  any  other 
ancient  writing,  we  must  render  the  opposite  verdict, 
and  declare  it  to  be  marvellously  correct.  Such  has 
been  the  care  with  which  the  New  Testament  has 
been  copied, — a  care  which  has  doubtless  grown  out  of 
true  reverence  for  its  holy  words, —  such  has  been  the 
providence  of  God  in  preserving  for  His  Church  in 
each  and  every  age  a  competently  exact  text  of  the 
Scriptures,  that  not  only  is  the  New  Testament 
unrivalled  among  ancient  writings  in  the  purity  of  its 
text  as  actually  transmitted  and  kept  in  use,  but  also 
in  the  abundance  of  testimony  which  has  come  down 


i 


INrnODUCTORY.  13 

to  us  for  castigating  its  comparatively  infrequent 
blemishes.  The  divergence  of  its  current  text  from 
the  autograph  may  shock  a  modern  printer  of  modern 
books ;  its  wonderful  approximation  to  its  autograph 
is  the  undisguised  envy  of  every  modern  reader  of 
ancient  books. 

When  we  attempt  to  state  the  amount  of  corrup- 
tion which  the  New  Testament  has  suffered  in  its 
transmission  through  two  millenniums,  absolutely 
instead  of  thus  relatively,  we  reach  scarcely  more 
intelligible  results.  Koughly  speaking,  there  have 
been  counted  in  it  some  hundred  and  eighty  or  two 
hundred  thousand  '^  various  readings  " — that  is,  actual  (  / 
variations  of  reading  in  existing  documents.  These  y 
are,  of  course,  the  result  of  corruption,  and  hence  the 
measure  of  corruption.  But  we  must  guard  against 
being  misled  by  this  very  misleading  statement.  It 
is  not  meant  that  there  are  nearly  two  hundred 
thousand  places  in  the  New  Testament  where  various 
readings  occur;  but  only  that  there  are  nearly  two 
hundred  thousand  various  readings  all  told ;  and  in 
many  cases  the  documents  so  differ  among  themselves! 
that  many  are  counted  on  a  single  word.  For  each 
document  is  compared  in  turn  with  the  one  standard, 
and  the  number  of  its  divergences  ascertained ;  then 
these  sums  are  themselves  added  together,  and  the 
result  given  as  the  number  of  actually  observed 
variations.  It  is  obvious  that  each  place  where  a 
variation  occurs  is  counted  as  many  times  over,  not 
only  as  distinct  variations  occur  upon  it,  but  also  as 
the  same  variation  occurs  in  different  manuscripts. 
This  sum    includes,    moreover,    all    variations  of    all 


14  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

kinds  and  in  all  sources,  even  those  that  are  singular 
to   a   single   document  of    infinitesimal  weight  as  a 
witness,  and  even  those  that  affect  such  very  minor 
matters  as  the  spelling  of  a  word.     Dr.   Ezra  Abbot 
I      was  accustomed  to  say  that  about  nineteen -twentieths 
1      of  them  have  so  little  support  that,  although  they  are 
j    various  readings,  no  one  would  think  of  them  as  rival 
^  readings ;  and  nineteen-twentieths  of  the  remainder 
are   of  so  little    importance    that    their    adoption  or 
rejection  would  cause  no  appreciable  difiei-ence  in  the 
sense  of  the  passages  where  they  occur.     Dr.  Hort's 
way  of  stating  it  is  that  upon  about  one  word  in  every 
, ,    eight  various  readings  exist    supported   by  sufficient 
evidence  to  bid  us  pause  and  look  at  it ;  that  about 
one   word    in    sixty   has    various    readings   upon   it 
supported  by  such  evidence  as  to  render  our  decision 
nice  and  difficult :  but  that  so  many  of  these  varia- 
tions are  trivial  that  only  about  one  word  in   every 
thousand  has  upon  it  substantial  variation  supported 
by  such  evidence   as  to  call  out  the  efforts  of    the 
critic  in  deciding  between  the  readings. 

The  gi-eat  mass  of  the  New  Testament,  in  other 

words,  has  been  transmitted  to  us  with  no,  or  next  to 

no,  variation ;  and  even  in  the  most  corrupt  form  in 

which  it  has   ever   appeared,   to  use  the  oft-quoted 

words  of    Richard  Bentley,  "the  real    text    of    the 

sacred  writers  is  competently  exact ;  .  .  .  nor  is  one 

article  of  faith  or  moral  precept  either  perverted  or 

1   lost  .  .  .  choose  as  awkwardly  as  you  will,  choose  the 

I  worst  by  design,  out  of  the  whole  lump  of  readings." 

^.If,  then,  we  underla^  e  the  textual  criticism  of  the 

New  Testament  under  a  sense  o^.   duty,  we  may  brin^ 


INTRODUCTORY.  15 

it  to  a  conclusion  under  the  inspiration  of  hope.  The 
autographic  text  of  the  New  Testament  is  distinctly 
within  the  reach  of  criticism  in  so  immensely  the 
greater  part  of  the  volume,  that  we  cannot  despair  of 
restoring  to  ourselves  and  the  Church  of  God,  His 
Book,  word  for  word,  as  He  gave  it  by  inspiration  to 
men. 

The  following  pages  are  intended  as  a  primary 
guide  to  students  making  their  first  acquaintance 
with  the  art  of  textual  criticism  as  apphed  to  the 
New  Testament.  Their  purpose  will  be  subserved  if 
they  enable  them  to  make  a  beginning,  and  to  enter 
into  the  study  of  the  text-books  on  the  subject  with 
ease  and  comfoi-t  to  themselves. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  MATTEB  OF  CRITICISM. 

THE  first  duty  of  the  student  who  is  seeking  the 
true  text  of  the  New  Testament  is  obviously 
to  collect  and  examine  the  witnesses  to  that  text. 
Whatever  professes  to  be  the  Greek  New  Testament 
is  a  witness  to  its  text.  Thus  we  observe  that  copies 
of  the  Greek  Testament  are  our  primary  witnesses  to 
its  text.  The  first  duty  of  the  textual  critic  is,  there- 
fore, to  collect  the  copies  of  the  Greek  Testament,  and, 
comparing  them  together,  cull  from  them  all  their 
various  readings.  He  will  not  only  acquire  in  this 
way  knowledge  of  the  variations  that  actually  exist, 
but  also  bring  together,  by  noting  the  copies  that 
support  each  reading,  the  testimony  for  each,  and  put 
himself  in  a  position  to  arrive  at  an  intelligent  con- 
clusion as  to  the  best  attested  text.  It  is  obvious  that 
no  external  circumstances,  such  as  the  form  of  the 
volume  in  which  it  is  preserved,  or  the  mechanical 
process  by  which  it  is  made,  whether  by  printing  or 
by  hand-copying,  will  affect  the  witness-bearing  of  a 
copy  to  the  text  it  professes  to  represent.  Printed 
copies  of  the  Greek  Testament  are  ^jer  se  as  valid 
witnesses  to  its  text  as  manuscripts ;  and  had  we  no 
manuscripts    we    should    not    despair  of  attaining  a 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  17 

good  text  from  printed  copies  alone.  Nevertheless, 
the  universal  consent  by  which  printed  copies  are  set 
aside  and  manuscripts  alone  used  as  witnesses  rests 
on  sound  reason.  The  first  printed  Greek  Testament 
was  completed  in  1514,  and  hence  all  printed  copies 
are  comparatively  late  copies,  and  therefore  presump- 
tively inferior  as  witnesses  of  the  original  text  to  the 
manuscript  copies,  almost  all  of  which  are  older  than 
the  sixteenth  century.  Still  more  to  the  point :  all 
printed  copies  have  been  made  from  the  manuscript 
copies,  and  therefore,  in  the  presence  of  the  manu- 
scripts themselves,  are  mere  repeaters  of  their  witness, 
and  of  no  value  at  all  as  additional  testimony  to  the 
original  text.  Wherever  the  printed  copies  agree 
with  the  manuscripts,  they  have  been  taken  from 
them,  and  add  nothing  to  their  testimony — they  are 
collusive  witnesses ;  wherever  they  present  readings 
that  are  found  in  no  manuscript,  this  is  due  either  to 
accidental  error,  and  is  therefore  of  no  value  as  testi- 
mony, or  to  editorial  emendation,  and  represents, 
therefore,  not  testimony  to  what  the  original  New 
Testament  contained,  but  opinion  as  to  what  it  must 
have  contained.  In  no  case,  therefore,  are  printed 
copies  available  as  witnesses,  and  the  manuscript 
copies  alone  are  treated  as  such. 

Alongside  of  the  manuscripts  as  the  primary  wit- 
nesses to  the  New  Testament  text  may  be  placed,  as 
secondary  witnesses,  translations  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment into  other  languages.  Although  a  version  does 
not  reproduce  the  text,  but  only  the  sense  which  that 
text  conveys,  yet,  so  far  as  it  is  an  accurate  rendering, 
we  can  reason  back  from  the  sense  conveyed  to  the 

2 


18  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

text  that  conveys  it.  No  doubt  we  could  not  repro- 
duce the  text  of  the  New  Testament  from  versions 
alone,  even  though  we  could  gain  from  them  the 
entire  sense  of  the  volume.  No  doubt,  too,  the 
ability  of  a  version  to  witness  on  special  points  will 
depend  on  the  genius  of  the  language  into  which  the 
Greek  has  been  transmuted.  For  example,  the  Latin 
can  seldom  testify  to  the  presence  or  absence  of  the 
article.  But  in  conjunction  with  Greek  manuscripts, 
and  when  regard  is  paid  to  the  limitations  of  the 
various  tongues  in  which  they  exist,  the  testimony  of 
versions  may  reach  even  primary  importance  in  the 
case  of  all  variations  that  affect  the  sense.  Especially 
in  questions  of  insertion  or  omission  of  sections, 
clauses,  or  Avords,  they  may  give  no  more  uncertain 
voice  than  Greek  manuscripts  themselves. 

For  use  as  a  witness  to  the  text  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  a  version  should 
have  been  made  immediately  from  the  Greek  and 
not  from  some  other  version.  In  the  latter  case  it 
is  a  direct  witness  only  to  the  text  of  the  version 
from  which  it  was  made,  and  only  in  case  of  the  loss 
of  that  version  can  it  be  used  as  a  mediate  witness 
to  the  Greek  text.  Furthermore,  it  is  desirable  that 
a  version  shall  have  been  made  sufficiently  early  for 
its  witness  to  be  borne  to  the  Greek  text  of  a  time 
from  which  few  monuments  of  it  have  come  down  to 
us.  Ordinarily  a  version  is  made  from  the  Greek  manu- 
scripts in  current  use  at  the  time,  and  if  this  time  be 
so  late  that  we  have  the  manuscripts  themselves,  the 
version  runs  too  great  risk  of  delivering  simply  collu- 
sive testimony  (like  printed  copies)  to  be  of  much  use 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  19 

in  criticism.  The  English  version,  for  example, 
although  taken  immediately  from  the  Greek  by 
Tyndale  in  1525,  and  repeatedly  revised  by  the  G-reek 
since,  is  of  inappreciable  value  as  a  witness  to  the 
Greek  text,  on  account  of  the  lateness  of  its  origin. 
The  use  to  which  a  version  may  be  put  in  textual 
criticism  depends  still  further  on  the  exactness  with 
which  it  renders  the  Greek ;  a  slavishness  of  literal 
rendering  which  would  greatly  lessen  its  usefulness 
as  a  version  would  give  it  only  additional  value  as 
a  witness  to  the  Greek  text.  For  example,  the  Har- 
clean  Syriac  version,  which  must  have  been  a  trial  to 
the  flesh  of  every  Syrian  reader  who  tried  to  make 
use  of  it,  reveals  its  underlying  Greek  text  as  perhaps 
no  other  ancient  version  is  able  to  do.  Under  such 
safeguards  as  these,  the  ancient,  immediate  versions  of 
the  Greek  Testament  may  be  ranged  alongside  of  the 
manuscripts  as  co-w^itnesses  to  its  text. 

Still  additional  testimony  can  be  obtained  to  the 
text  of  special  passages  of  the  Greek  Testament  by 
attending  to  the  quotations  made  from  the  Greek 
Testament  by  those  who  have  used  it  or  written  upon 
it.  Whenever  a  reputable  writer  declares  that  his 
Greek  Testament  reads  thus,  and  not  thus,  for  as 
much  of  the  text  as  it  covers  his  assertion  is  equal  in 
value  as  a  witness,  to  a  Greek  manuscript  of  his  day. 
And  the  ordinary  quotations  from  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment by  early  writers  are,  so  far  as  they  are  accurately 
made,  of  real  worth  as  testimony  to  the  texts  current 
in  their  time.  As  in  the  case  of  versions,  patristic 
evidence  will  vary  in  value — with  the  age  of  the 
father  who  makes  the  quotation,  with  the  accuracy 


20  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

with  which  he  ordinarily  quotes,  and  even  with  the 
character  of  the  work  in  which  the  quotation  occurs. 
For  example,  a  citation  in  a  polemic  treatise,  bent 
mayhap  to  fit  the  need,  Avill  be  p'^'imd  facie  less  to  be 
depended  on,  in  the  mhiutice  of  the  wording,  than 
a  lengthy  quotation  in  a  commentary  copied  out  for 
the  express  purpose  of  explaining  its  very  words.  So 
far,  however,  as  this  patristic  evidence  is  available 
at  all,  and  can  be  depended  on,  it  is  direct  evidence 
as  distinguished  from  the  indirect  character  of  the 
evidence  of  translations,  and  cannot  l)e  neglected 
without  serious  loss. 

The  collection  of  the  evidence  for  the  text  of  the 
New  Testament  includes,  thus,  the  gathering  together 
of  all  the  manuscripts  of  the  Greek  Testament,  of  all 
the  ancient,  immediate  translations  made  from  it,  and 
of  all  citations  taken  from  it  by  early  w^riters ;  the 
comparing  of  all  these  together  and  noting  of  their 
divergences  or  "  various  readings  " ;  and  the  attach- 
ing to  each  "  various  reading "  the  list  of  witnesses 
that  support  it.  The  labour  required  for  such  a  task 
depends,  of  course,  on  the  wealth  of  witnessing  docu- 
ments that  exist  and  need  examining,  or  "  collating," 
as  it  is  technically  called.  If,  for  instance,  we  w^ere 
dealing  with  the  first  six  books  of  the  "  Annals  "  of 
Tacitus,  the  task  would  be  an  easy  one ;  there  would 
l)e  but  a  single  manuscript  to  examine,  no  version,  and 
before  the  fifteenth  century  but  a  single  quotation.  In 
the  New  Testament,  on  the  other  hand,  the  number  of 
known  manuscripts  cannot  fall  below  two  thousand  ; 
at  least  a  dozen  early  versions  must  be  taken  account 
of  ;  and  the  whole  mass  of  patristic  literature  must  be 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  21 

searched  for  quotations.  In  the  "  Annals  "  of  Tacitus, 
again,  as  we  have  but  a  single  manuscript  and  nothing 
to  collate  with  it,  we  should  have  no  various  readings 
at  all,  while  in  the  New  Testament  we  must  needs 
face,  before  the  work  of  collation  is  more  than  half 
completed,  not  less  than  two  hundred  thousand ; 
whence  it  is  easy  to  see,  we  may  remark  in  passing, 
that  this  great  number  of  various  readings  is  not  due 
to  greater  corruption  of  the  New  Testament  text  than 
is  ordinarily  found  in  ancient  writings,  but  to  the 
immensely  greater  number  of  witnessing  documents 
that  has  come  down  to  us  for  it,  over  and  above 
what  has  reached  us  for  any  other  ancient  work 
whatever.  It  is  also"  immediately  apparent,  however, 
that  no  one  man  and  no  one  generation  could  hope 
to  bring  to  completion  the  task  of  collecting  the 
various  readings  of  the  New  Testament  with  the 
full  evidence  for  each.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  work 
has  been  performing  now,  by  a  succession  of  diligent 
and  self-denying  scholars,  since  the  undertaking  of 
Walton's  Polyglot  in  1657.  Already  in  Mill's  day 
(1707)  as  many  as  30,000  various  readings  had  been 
collected ;  and  from  Bentley  and  Wetstein  to  Tisch- 
endorf,  Tregelles,  and  Scrivener,  the  w^ork  has  been 
prosecuted  without  intermission,  until  it  has  now 
reached  relative  completeness,  and  the  time  is  ripe 
for  the  estimation  of  the  great  mass  of  evidence  that 
has  been  gathered.  It  must  not  be  inferred  from 
this  that  all  the  known  manuscripts  of  the  New 
Testament  have  even  yet  been  collated ;  only  a  small 
minority  of  the  whole  number  have  been  accurately 
examined,  much  less  entirely  collated,  and  every  year 


22  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

additions  are  made  to  the  mass  of  facts  already  known. 
But  now,  at  length,  enough  have  been  collated  to 
give  us  knowledge  of  the  general  character  of  the 
whole,  and  to  place  the  testimony  of  all  the  oldest 
and  most  valuable  in  detail  before  our  eyes.  The 
scholar  of  to-day,  while  beckoned  on  by  the  example 
of  the  great  collators  of  the  past  to  continue  the  work 
of  gathering  material  as  strength  and  opportunity 
may  allow,  yet  enters  into  a  great  inheritance  of  work 
already  done,  and  is  able  to  undertake  the  work  of 
textual  criticism  itself  as  distinguished  from  the 
collecting  of  material  for  that  work. 

The  results  of  the  collations  that  were  made 
before  the  publication  of  those  great  works  have  been 
collected  and  spread  orderly  before  the  eye  of  the 
student  in  the  critical  editions  of  the  Greek  New 
Testament  edited  by  Dr.  Tregelles  and  Dr.  Tischen- 
dorf.  With  the  ''  digests  of  readings  "  given  in  these 
works  the  beginner  may  well  content  himself.  He 
will  discover  later  that  such  digests  have  not  been 
framed  and  printed  without  some  petty  errors  of  detail 
creeping  in,  and  will  learn  to  correct  these  and  add  the 
results  of  more  recent  collations.  But  he  will  under- 
stand more  and  more  fully  every  year  that  he  pro- 
secutes his  studies,  what  monuments  of  diligence  and 
painstaking  care  these  digests  are,  and  how  indispen- 
sable they  are  for  all  future  work.  Every  student 
who  purposes  to  devote  any  considerable  time  to  the 
study  of  this  branch  of  sacred  learning  should  procure 
at  the  outset  either  Dr.  Tregelles'  The  Creek  Neio 
Testament,  edited  from  Ancient  Authorities,  loith  the 
Various  Headings  in  full,  etc.  (London,  1857 — 1879, 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  23 

in  4to  parts) ;  or  else,  and  preferably,  Dr.  Tischendorf 's 
Novum  Testamentum  Greece  ad  antiquissimos  testes 
denuo  recensuit,  etc.  Editio  octava  critica  maior 
(Leipzig,  1869—1872,  2  vols.  8vo).  A.  "minor" 
edition  of  Tischendorf,  described  as  "editio  critica 
minor  ex  viii.  maiore  desumjHa'^  (Leipzig,  1877, 
1  vol.  thick  12mo),  contains  an  excellent  compressed 
digest,  and  will  suffice  for  the  needs  of  those  who  can 
ill  afford  the  large  edition,  or  who  can  put  but  little 
time  on  the  study  of  this  subject.  One  or  another 
of  these  three  editions  is,  however,  little  less  than 
a  necessary  prerequisite  for  the  profitable  study  of 
textual  criticism. 

The  compression  with  which  the  evidence  for  the 
various  readings  is  given  in  the  digests  makes  the 
notes  of  a  critical  edition  appear  little  less  than  in- 
soluble enigmas  to  the  uninitiated  eye,  and  renders  it 
necessary  to  give  the  beginner  some  hints  as  to  their 
use.  Let  us  take  a  sample  note  at  random.  We  open 
Tischendorf 's  eighth  edition  at  Mark  i.  11,  and  find 
his  text  to  run  :  koI  ^wj/r)  ck  roiv  ovpai/wv'  crv  et  6  i;to9 
fjiov  6  aya-TrrjTos,  iv  crol  evBoKrja-a.  On  this  the  notes 
stand  as  follows  : — 

"11  cfiujvr)  cum  N»*D  fi'^-  mt  .  .  .  ^  Ln  Ti  add  eyevero 
cum  t<c^^]3Lp  xijiqU  al  fere  omn  itP^  (sed  b  de 
Gcelo  facta  est)  vg  cop  syr"*""  al ;  item  a  venit  vox, 
f  vox  venit ;  28.  2p°  g^-  rjKovaOr]  post  ovp.  (::  Mt 
Kttt  iSov  </)a).  c.  T.  ovp.  Xeyovaa,  Lc  kul  cf>o)vr]v  e^ 
ovp.  yeveaOac)  \  cv  crot  (Gb.)  cum  ^BD^*"  LPA  1.  13. 
22.  33.  69  al  plus25  a  c  fi'2.  (et.  &^  ut^'i^i)  g^-  1  vg 
copschw  gyj,sch  g^p  text  ^^.^zo  seth  go  .  .  .  g  ev  oj  cum 
Am  unc^  al  pi  b  d  (m  quern  comjjlacui)  gi*  (f 


24  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

qui  mihi  bene  comjylacuisti)   ::  ita  Mt,  ev  ctol  et. 

Lc;    cf  et.  evg.  Ebion.   ad   Mt  3,   17  |  evSoKrjo-a 

cum   NABD-KLMUn  al  pi  .  .  .  DSEFHVrA 

al  pm  rjvSoK." 
We  observe  first  that  the  language  of  the  notes  is 
Latin,  but  that  every  word  is  abbreviated  which  can 
be  abbreviated,  and  the  compression  goes  so  far  as 
to  omit  even  the  point  which  usually  stands  at  the  end 
of  a  contracted  word.  We  note  next  that  a  vertical 
line,  thus  | ,  divides  between  notes  on  different  words ; 
so  that  there  are  three  separate  notes  on  verse  1 1 , — one 
on  ^wi/tJ,  one  on  iv  ctol,  and  one  on  evSoKrjo-a.  A  series 
of  points,  thus  .  .  .,  marks  the  transition  from  the 
evidence  for  one  reading  to  that  for  a  rival  reading. 
Next  we  note  that  the  testimony  is  cited  by  means  of 
symbols,  either  letters  or  numerals,  representing  the 
witnessing  documents,  the  full  names  of  which  would 
extend  the  note  to  unmanageable  proportions,  as  well 
as  present  so  poor  a  mark  for  the  eye  as  to  double 
the  labour  of  using  the  digest.  The  abbreviations  of 
Latin  words  as  well  as  all  symbols  peculiar  to  this 
book  are  explained  in  a  preliminary  list  prefixed  to 
the  volume.  With  this  much  of  explanation  we  may 
manage  to  read  the  cypher  before  us  thus : — 

"  (^rnivrj  [i.e.  without  any  verb,  as  the  latter  half  of 
the  note  tells  us,  is  read  in  the  text  above,  in  accord- 
ance] with  [the  testimony  of  the  following  witnesses, 
to  wit — ]."  Then  follow  the  symbols  of  the  witnessing 
documents,  two  of  which  in  this  case  (those  repre- 
sented by  the  two  capital  letters,  x*D)  are  Greek 
manuscripts ;  and  the  other  two  each  a  MS.  of  a  Latin 
version.     The  break  made  by  the  row  of  points  indi- 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  25 

cates  the  passage  over  to  the  other  side  of  the  evidence, 
where  we  read  :  "  ^  [a  conventional  symbol,  indicating 
here  the  editions  of  the  New  Testament  published  by 
Robert  Stephens  in  1550  and  the  Elzevirs  in  1624, 
together  with  those  of  Griesbach  (1827)  and  Scholtz 
(1830)],  Ln.  [i.e.  Lachmann's  edition,  1842],  Ti.  [i.e. 
Tischendorf's  earlier  edition,  1859,  called  his  seventh] 
add  eyevero  [so  that  they  read  tjnavy]  eyei/ero]  with  [the 
following  witnesses,  to  wit — ]".  Then  again  follows 
the  enumeration  of  the  witnesses  by  symbols.  In  this 
case  five  Greek  manuscripts  are  named,  under  the 
symbols,  X",  A,  B,  L,  P,  with  the  additional  informa- 
tion that  "  eleven  other  uncials  [i.e.  Greek  MSS. 
written  throughout  in  large  letters]  and  nearly  all 
other  "  Greek  MSS.  join  in  this  testimony.  With  the 
symbol  "it^  "  the  enumeration  of  the  versions  com- 
mences, this  symbol  representing  the  ''  Itala,"  or  Old 
Latin  version,  while  the  ^  tells  us  that  the  statement 
here  made  holds  good  of  most  [j^lerisque)  of  its  MSS. 
in  opposition  to  the  one  cited  (under  the  symbol  fF^-) 
on  the  other  side.  The  divergent  reading  of  the  Old 
Latin  MS.,  b,  is  then  particularly  stated  in  parentheses, 
and  the  enumeration  proceeds  with  the  citation  of  the 
Vulgate  Latin  version  (vg.),  the  Coptic  version  (cop.), 
both  Syriac  versions  (syr*'*")  and  the  intimation  that 
other  versions  yet  (al  =  aliis)  might  be  added.  Next, 
after  a  semicolon,  more  particular  quotation  is  given 
of  peculiar  readings  which  yet  appear  to  make  for 
the  insertion  of  eyevero,  viz.,  "  Likewise  [the  Old  Latin 
MS.]  a  [reads]  venit  vox,  [the  Old  Latin  MS.]  f,  vox 
venit."  After  another  semicolon  other  peculiar  read- 
ings are  given,  thus :     '^  [Two  Greek  MSS.  written  in 


26  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

small  letters  and  cited  as]  28.  2^%  [and  one  Old  Latin 
MS.  cited  as]  g^-  [read]  rjKovaOr]  after  oi;p[avwv]." 
Finally,  in  parentheses,  the  parallel  passages  from 
Matthew  and  Luke  are  given  as  briefly  as  possible, 
and  we  find  ourselves  against  the  perpendicular  line 
which  tells  us  that  we  are  at  the  end  of  this  note. 

The  next  note  concerns  the  reading  iv  o-ot,  and  tells 
us  : — "  €v  aoL  ([commended  also  by]  Griesbach),  [is  read 
above  in  accordance]  with  [the  testimony  of  the  follow- 
ing uncial  manuscripts  of  the  Greek  Testament,  viz., 
those  cited  by  the  symbols]  n*,B,D»^L,P,A,  [and  the 
following,  wi'itten  in  small  letters,  viz.,  those  cited  by 
the  symbols]  1,  13,  22,  33,  69,  and  more  than  25 
others,  [as  well  as  of  the  following  MSS.  of  the  Old 
Latin  version,  viz.,  those  cited  as]  a,  c,  ff-*,  (also  [et.  = 
etiam],  apparently  ff^-,)  g^,  1,  the  Vulgate  Latin  version, 
the  Coptic  version  according  to  Schwartze's  edition, 
the  Syriac  version  according  to  Schaaf's  edition  [of 
the  Peshitto],  the  text  of  the  Syrian  version  according 
to  White's  edition  [of  the  Harclean],  the  Armenian 
version  according  to  Zohrab's  edition,  the  Ethiopic 
version,  and  the  Gothic  version."  At  this  place  we 
reach  the  points,  and  pass  over  to  the  reading  and 
evidence  on  the  contrary  part: — '^  Stephens,  1550, 
Elzevir,  1624,  Scholtz  and  Griesbach's  text  [all  this  is 
included  in  the  sign  9]  [read]  ev  w  with  A,r,n,  and 
eight  other  uncial  and  most  other  Greek  MSS.,  [as 
well  as  with  the  Old  Latin  MSS.  cited  as]  b,  d  ([which 
latter  reads]  in  quern  comjjlacioi),  g^-  (f  [reads]  qui 
itiihi  bene  complacuisti)."  The  information  is  then 
added  that  the  parallel  in  Matthew  reads  ev  w,  while 
in  Luke  €v  o-oi  is  read,  to  which  is  added  :    "  Compare 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  27 

also  the  Ebionite  Gospel  [as  quoted  in  the  note]  at 
Matt.  iii.  17,"  where,  sure  enough,  we  find  a  long 
quotation  from  this  apocryphal  book,  taken  from 
Epiphanius. 

The  third  note  is  briefer,  and  only  tells  us : 
''euSoKTyo-a  [is  read  above]  with  [the  uncial  MSS.] 
N,  A,  B,  D*,  K,  L,  M,  TJ,  n,  and  most  others,  while  [the 
uncial  MSS.]  J)\  E,  F,  H,  Y,  T,  A,  and  very  many 
others  [read]  rjvSoKrja-a."  The  difierence,  it  will  be 
observed,  turns  on  the  presence  or  absence  of  the 
augment. 

The  reader  has  probably  not  waded  through  this 
explanation  of  these  notes  without  learning  something- 
more  than  the  mere  knack  of  unravelling  their  con- 
tractions and  extending  their  implications.  He  has 
learned,  doubtless,  that  there  are  two  classes  of  Greek 
manuscripts,  the  one  written  in  large  letters  and  cited 
by  capital  letters  as  symbols,  and  the  other  written 
in  small  letters  and  cited  by  numerals  as  symbols. 
Above  all  else,  however,  he  is  likely  to  have  learned 
that  digests  of  readings  are  useless  to  those  who  know 
nothing  about  the  things  digested.  He  has  not  read 
even  these  few  notes  without  feeling  that  he  must 
know  something  about  these  manuscripts  and  ver- 
sions and  fathers  (for  it  is  a  mere  chance  that  no 
father  is  quoted  on  Mark  i.  11),  if  he  is  to  deal  with 
their  testimony.  We  may  assume,  therefore,  that  he 
is  the  better  prepared  by  a  sight  of  the  digest  to  go 
with  us  in  our  next  step,  and  learn  something  about 
our  three  classes  of  witnesses. 


28  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 


1.  Greek  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  most  astonishing  thing  about  the  manuscripts 
of  the  New  Testament  is  their  great  number  :  as  has 
already  been  intimated,  quite_two  thousand  of  them 
Jia\'e  been  catalogued  upon  the  lists, — a  number 
altogether  out  of  proportion  to  what  antiquity  has 
preserved  for  other  ancient  books.  The  oldest  of 
them  w^as  written  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century ;  the  youngest  after  the  New  Testament  had 
been  put  into  print.  The  products  of  so  many  ages, 
they  differ  among  themselves  in  numerous  particulars : 
the  material  on  which  they  are  written,  the  character 
in  which  they  are  wi-itten,  the  divisions  that  have 
been  introduced  into  the  text  or  indicated  on  the 
margin,  the  punctuation  they  have  received,  and  the 
like.  The  oldest  copy  that  has  survived  to  our  day, 
it  will  be  observed,  was  made  quite  two  centuries  or 
tAvo  centuries  and  a  half  after  the  latest  book  of  the 
New  Testament  was  given  to  the  world.  There  can 
arise  no  question  among  them,  therefore,  as  to  the 
autographs  of  the  sacred  books.  However  we  may 
account  for  it,  the  autographs  disappeared  very  early ; 
perhaps  the  brittleness  of  the  papyrus  (2  John  12) 
on  which  they  were  written  and  the  constant  use  to 
which  they  were  put,  combined  with  the  evil  fortunes 
of  a  persecuted  Church  and  a  piety  which  knew 
nothing  of  the  sacredness  of  relics,  to  destroy  them 
very  rapidly.  At  any  rate,  except  in  a  rhetorical 
burst  of  a  Tertullian,  we  hear  nothing  of  them  in  the 
primitive  Church,  and  an  Irenoeus  and  an  Origen  were, 


THE   MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  29 

like  us  of  to-day,  forced  to  depend  solely  on  the  oldest 
and  most  accurate  copies. 

In  attempting  to  classify  this  vast  mass  of  material, 
the  first  and  sharpest  line  that  is  drawn  concerns 
itself  with  the  contents  of  the  manuscripts,  and 
separates  those  which  give  a  continuous  text — of 
whatever  extent — from  those  that  contain  only  the 
Church  lessons  drawn  from  the  New  Testament.  The 
latter  are  called  "  Lectionaries,"  and  number  several 
hundreds,  dating  from  the  eighth  to  the  sixteenth  and 
even  seventeenth  centuries ;  they  form  a  subordinate 
class  of  manuscripts,  which  will  engage  our  attention 
at  a  later  point.  The  continuous  manuscripts  are 
much  more  numerous,  but  differ  greatly  among  them- 
selves in  the  extent  of  their  contents.  Only  a  few 
contain  the  w^hole  New  Testament,  and  some  are 
small  fragments  that  preserv^e  only  a  few  verses  or 
even  words.  Most  of  them,  doubtless,  never  con- 
tained the  entire  New  Testament,  but  were,  when 
complete,  manuscripts  of  one  or  more  of  the  portions 
into  which  the  bulkiness  of  a  written  copy  and  the 
costliness  of  hand-made  volumes  caused  the  New 
Testament  to  be  divided  in  early  times.  This  circum- 
stance leads  to  the  apportioning  of  our  extant  manu- 
scripts into  classes,  according  to  the  parts  of  the  New 
Testament  that  they  contain ;  and  f  ollomng  the 
indications  of  the  early  custom,  the  New  Testament  is 
divided,  for  critical  purposes,  into  four  sections — viz. 
(1)  the  Gospels,  (2)  the  Acts  and  the  Catholic  Epistles, 
(3)  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  and  (4)  the  Apocalypse. 
The  manuscripts  for  each  of  these  sections  are  counted 
separately,    and    symbols    assigned    to    them    inde- 


30  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

pendently.  It  hence  happens  that  when  a  manuscript 
contains  more  than  one  section  it  may  be  represented 
by  different  symbols  in  its  several  parts,  while  con- 
versely the  same  symbol  may  represent  different 
manuscripts  in  the  several  sections.  Thus,  for 
example,  D  in  the  Gospels  is  Codex  Bezse,  while  D  in 
Paul  is  Codex  Claromontanus,  a  related  but  entkely 
different  manuscript ;  B  in  the  Gospels  is  the  Great 
Codex  Vaticanus,  the  oldest  and  most  valuable  of  our 
manuscripts,  while  B  in  the  Apocalypse  is  the  late 
and  inferior  Codex  Vaticanus  2066  ;  on  the  other 
hand,  A  of  the  Gospels  is  the  same  codex  as  G  in 
Paul ;  and  13  is  the  same  with  33  of  the  Gospels  and 
17  of  Paul ;  and  69  of  the  Gospels  is  the  same  as  31  of 
Acts,  37  of  Paul,  and  14  of  the  Apocalypse.  On  the 
other  hand,  N,  A,  and  C  represent  the  same  codices 
throughout  the  four  parts,  and  1,  3,  5,  6,  etc.,  are  the 
same  codices  in  the  Gospels,  Acts  and  Paul.  The 
list  for  each  of  the  four  parts  is  redacted,  in  a  word, 
in  entire  independence  of  the  others,  and  must  be 
treated  independently.  The  conveniences  that  arise 
from  this  arrangement  are  manifold ;  while  very  small 
inconvenience  results,  except  when  we  wish  to  speak 
of  a  manuscript  in  a  context  that  gives  no  hint  of 
the  portion  of  the  New  Testament  to  which  it 
belongs.  Usually  it  is  easy  to  use  its  name  in  such 
cases ;  when  this  is  inconvenient,  a  kind  of  shorthand 
method  of  distinguishing  it  has  been  suggested,  which 
consists  in  placing  a  small  numeral  at  the  bottom  (not 
at  the  top,  like  an  exponent, — this  means  something 
very  difierent)  of  the  symbol,  designating  it  as  the 
second,  third,  or  fourth  manuscript  of  that  symbol  in 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  31 

the  lists,  the  parts  being  counted,  of  course,  from  the 
Gospels  on.  Thus,  D  without  numeral  means  Codex 
Bezse,  which  contains  the  G-ospels  and  Acts ;  and  Dg 
Codex  Claromontanus,  which  contains  the  Epistles  of 
Paul.  In  like  manner  E  means  Codex  Basiliensis  of 
the  Gjspels,  while  E^  means  Codex  Laudianus  35  of 
the  Acts,  and  Eg  Codex  Sangermanensis  of  Paul.  Or 
again,  B  is  the  Great  Codex  Yaticanus,  and  includes 
the  Gospels,  Acts,  and  Paul,  while  Bg  is  Codex  Yati- 
canus 2066,  and  contains  the  Apocalypse.  Another 
method  of  somewhat  more  clumsily  securing  the  same 
result  is  to  place  at  the  top  of  the  symbol  an  abbrevi- 
ated indication  of  the  portion  of  the  New  Testament 
in  which  the  manuscript  bears  this  symbol,  thus: 
gapoc.^  Dew.  act.^  J)  paui^  ^^^  ^^^  lil^^^  ^^  ^^^^^i  distinguish- 
ing marks  are  needed  in  citing  the  manuscripts  in  the 
direct  business  of  textual  criticism,  for  which  purpose 
their  classification  and  symbolising  were  invented : 
the  passage  that  is  under  discussion  determines  the 
section,  and  the  bare  symbol  is  sufficient  to  identify 
each  manuscript. 

Another  sharp  division  line  that  separates  the 
manuscripts  into  great  and  well-marked  classes  con- 
cerns itself  with  the  character  or  handwriting  in 
which  they  are  written.  By  this  division  the  manu- 
scripts are  parted  into  two  very  unequal  bodies,  called 
respectively  ''  Uncial  MSS."  and  "  Minuscule  (or, 
more  improperly  and  confusingly,  '  Cursive ')  MSS." 
The  former  includes  all  those  manuscripts,  less  than 
a  hundred  in  number,  which  are  written  throughout 
in  that  kind  of  half -capital  character  which  is  techni- 
cally known  as  uncial;  they  are  designated  in  the 


32  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

lists  and  cited  in  the  digests  by  the  capital  letters  of 
the  Latin,  Greek,  and  Hebrew  alphabets  as  symbols : 
A,  B,  C,  D,  etc.,  r,  A,  H,  n,  %,  etc.,  x.  The  latter  class 
includes  all  other  manuscripts,  about  two  thousand 
in  number,  all  of  which  are  written  in  a  character 
that  more  closely  resembles  the  small  letters  of  our 
ordinarily  printed  Greek  and  hence  is  appropriately 
called  minuscule  (or  more  improperly,  cursive) ;  they 
are  designated  in  the  lists  and  cited  in  the  digests 
chiefly  by  Arabic  numerals  as  symbols  :  1,  2,  3,  4, 
527,  etc.  The  importance  of  this  classification  resides 
not  so  much  in  its  great  formal  convenience  as  in  the 
fact  that  it  separates  the  manuscripts  according  to 
their  age.  No  known  uncial  MS.  of  the  continuous 
text  was  written  later  than  the  tenth  century,  and  no 
known  minuscule  (cursive)  was  written  earlier  than 
the  ninth ;  so  that  the  tenth  century  forms  a  sharp 
division  line  between  the  two  classes.  The  introduc- 
tion of  the  minuscule  hand  in  the  ninth  century  is  not 
only  proved  by  the  earliest  dated  books  existing  in 
that  hand — viz..  Codex  481  of  the  Gospels,  dated  7th 
May,  835,  the  Bodleian  Euclid,  dated  888,  and  the 
Bodleian  Plato,  dated  895 — but  is  oddly  illustrated  by 
Codex  A  of  the  Gospels,  which  comes  to  us  from  the 
ninth  century,  and  is  written  partly  in  uncials  and 
partly  in  minuscules.  Nevertheless,  few  specimens 
of  the  minuscule  hand  of  the  ninth  century  exist 
among  manuscripts  of  the  Greek  Testament.  In  the 
tenth  century  they  become  numerous,  and  in  the 
eleventh  they  have  entirely  displaced  uncial  codices 
for  the  continuous  text;  though  the  conservatism  of 
ecclesiastical  institutions  is  illustrated   by    the   con- 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  33 

tinuance  of  the  uncial  hand  in  use  for  the  lectionaries 
through  the  eleventh  century,  of  which  age  even 
important  dated  copies  exist.  By  this  classification 
there  are  thus  set  apart  from  one  another  the  few, 
old,  uncial  copies,  and  the  many,  late,  minuscule  copies, 
and  a  separate  set  of  symbols  assigned  to  each.  Even 
in  the  brief  digests  we  may  see  these  two  bodies  of 
codices  marshalled  in  separate  regiments,  as  it  were, 
and  are  enabled  to  estimate  them  accordingly  at  a 
glance. 

The  chronological  efiect  of  classifying  codices  by 
the  handwriting  employed  in  them  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  handwriting,  like  language  and  all  else 
human,  is  subject  to  gradual  change  and  undergoes 
historical  development,  so  that  its  stages  of  growth 
mark  progressive  epochs.  In  the  development  of 
the  Greek  book-hand  three  strongly  marked  stages 
are  to  be  distinguished, — the  stages  of  Capitals, 
Uncials,  and  Minuscules.  But  contemporary  with 
these  book-hands  there  was  also  in  use,  running 
in  parallel  development,  a  current  or  cursive  hand 
for  the  more  familiar  and  rapidly  written  documents 
of  business  or  private  life.  And  it  was  this  cursive 
hand  that  became  the  real  parent  of  each  new 
book-hand,  so  that  from  the  cursive  capitals  grew  up 
the  uncial  book-hand,  and  from  the  cursive  uncials 
the  minuscule  book-hand.  The  development  was 
always,  thus,  the  resultant  of  the  co-working  of  two 
forces,  one  pushing  towards  ease  in  writing,  the  other 
towards  ease  in  reading, — the  one  securing  fluency, 
the  other  legibility.  Next  after  these,  the  most 
powerful    force    that    affected    the    development    of 

3 


34  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

writing  seems  to  have  been  change  in  the  material 
on  which  the  writing  was  wrought.  The  lapidary 
capitals,  the  angular  shapes  of  which  were  peculiarly 
suitable  to  the  art  of  stone-cutting,  became  graceful, 
light,  curved  uncials  when  written  with  a  pointed 
reed  on  the  friable  substance  of  the  papyrus-paper, 
which  constituted  the  usual  material  of  books  in  the 
centuries  immediately  preceding  and  following  the 
commencement  of  our  era.  These  semi-cursive,  rapid 
and  light  lines  were  no  sooner  transferred  to  the 
hard,  smooth  surface  of  vellum  than  they  acquired 
the  firmness  and  regularity  which  makes  the  book- 
hand  of  our  earliest  vellum  manuscripts  (about  the 
fourth  century  a.d.)  the  most  beautiful  known; 
although  it  began  to  degenerate  almost  as  soon  as 
formed,  under  the  temptation  which  the  smooth  surface 
offered  to  broaden  and  coarsen  the  strokes.  Once  more, 
so  soon  as  the  uncial  cursive  of  common  life  was 
transferred  from  the  papyrus  of  business  writings  to  the 
vellum  of  books,  it  acquired  firmness  and  regularity, 
and  became  the  beautiful  minuscule  of  the  ninth  and 
tenth  centuries, — only,  however,  to  enter  in  its  turn  on 
a  long  course  of  gradual  change  and  debasement.  No 
Greek  writing  has  come  down  to  us  in  capitals ;  they 
are  coniined  in  extant  books  to  titles,  superscriptions, 
and  the  like.  The  earliest  extant  remains  of  Greek 
literature  and  of  Greek  private  writing  alike  (second 
century  B.C.)  present  us  with  truly  uncial  writing, 
but  with  an  uncial  which  is  as  yet  so  largely  cursive 
as  to  hint  of  a  recent  origin.  The  uncials  reach 
their  highest  beauty,  so  far  as  our  monuments  allow 
us  to  trace  them,  about  the  fourth  century  a.d.  ;  and 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  35 

the  gradual  changes  which  they  undergo,  the  coarsen- 
ing that  came  in  in  the  sixth  century,  the  oblong 
and  oval  shapes  that  were  introduced  together  with  a 
sloping  writing  in  the  seventh  century,  and  the  like, 
are  among  the  most  trustworthy  guides  of  the 
palaeographer  in  determining  the  age  of  a  manuscript. 
In  like  manner  the  growth  of  the  minuscule  hand  is 
traceable  through  four  marked  and  many  less  striking 
changes  that  furnish  landmarks  to  the  student.  The 
details  must  be  left  to  works  on  palaeography ;  and  it 
will  suffice  for  us  to  have  indicated  them  thus  briefly, 
while  we  insist  only  on  the  broad  distinction  between 
the  uncials  and  minuscules  as  great  classes, — the 
former  embracing,  in  general,  the  Biblical  manu- 
scripts written  from  the  fourth  to  the  tenth  century, 
and  the  latter  those  written  from  the  tenth  century 
until  the  printing-press  put  a  stop  to  hand-copying 
altogether. 

As  has  been  already  hinted,  the  very  material  on 
which  a  manuscript  is  written  may  become  of  import- 
ance as  a  criterion  of  its  age.  It  is  perhaps  certain 
that  the  New  Testament  autographs  were  written 
on  the  paper  made  from  the  Egyptian  papyrus  (cf. 
2  John  12),  which  appears  to  have  been  the  ordinary 
literary  vehicle  of  the  time.  This  paper  could  be 
manufactured  in  small  sheets  only,  which  were  glued 
together  at  the  side  edges  into  long  ribbons,  thus 
forming  rolls,  and  then  written  upon  with  a  reed  pen 
in  short  columns  running  across  the  roll,  a  column  to 
each  of  the  original  sheets.  To  "  open  "  such  a  book 
was  simply  to  roll  up  the  long  ribbon  at  one  end, 
simultaneously  allowing  it  to   unroll    at  the    other  - 


36  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

thus  a  long  succession  of  short,  narrow  columns,  corre- 
sponding to  our  pages,  would  pass  before  the  eye  of 
the  reader  in  a  not  inconvenient  arrangement.  This 
papyrus-book  seems  to  have  been  in  use  pretty 
universally  during  the  first  ages  of  the  Christian  era, 
and  papyrus  continued  to  be  used  by  Greek  scribes 
as  a  writing  material  as  late  as  the  ninth  century. 
No  very  early  papyrus  manuscripts  of  the  New 
Testament  have  come  down  to  us ;  some  meagre  frag- 
ments of  the  fifth  century  containing  a  few  words 
from  1  Corinthians  (cited  as  Q),  and  a  seventh  (?) 
century  fragment  of  Luke's  Gospel,  possibly  from  a 
lectionary,  brought  to  light  by  Wesserly  in  1882, 
are  about  all  that  we  have  as  yet  knowledge  of, 
although  it  is  understood  that  there  are  more  among 
the  Fayiim  papyri  at  Vienna.  The  columnar 
arrangement  of  our  oldest  New  Testament  manu- 
scripts on  vellum  appears  to  be  a  reminiscence  of  the 
appearance  of  an  open  papyrus  roll  and  a  witness  to 
a  desire  to  retain  on  vellum  the  familiar  appearance 
of  a  many-columned  sheet  of  papyrus.  Codex  j<  has 
four  columns  to  each  page,  so  that  at  every  opening 
it  offers  a  view  of  eight  narrow  parallel  columns. 
Codex  B  has  three  columns  to  ^  piige,  and  several 
manuscripts  have  two.  When  vellum  took  the  place  of 
papyrus  as  a  literary  vehicle,  the  stiffness  of  the  new 
materifd,  which  lent  itself  ill  to  rolling,  necessitated 
a  change  in  the  form  of  the  book,  which  now  became 
a  "  codex,"  or,  in  other  words,  assumed  the  form  of 
bound  leaves  as  in  our  ordinary  books.  Papyrus 
leaves  are  rarely  found  so  bound,  and  always  inter- 
leaved with  velhim  at  intervals,  to  give  stability  to 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  37 

the  whole.  Cotton  paper  made  its  appearance  in  the 
Western  world  in  the  eighth  century ;  the  first  speci- 
men of  a  New  Testament  manuscript  written  on  it  is  a 
lectionary  of  the  ninth  century.  It  did  not,  however, 
become  a  serious  rival  of  parchment  until  it  was 
itself  largely  displaced  by  rag  or  linen  paper,  which 
was  introduced  in  perhaps  the  twelfth  century,  and 
came  into  general  use  in  the  fourteenth,  although 
parchment  was  never  entirely  displaced  until  after 
the  invention  of  printing.  Occasionally  [e.g.  Codex 
Leicestrensis)  parchment  and  paper  both  enter  into 
the  composition  of  a  book. 

Throughout  the  whole  history  of  vellum  books  the 
practice  more  or  less  prevailed  of  supplying  parch- 
ment for  new  books  by  washing  out  the  writing 
from  old  sheets,  which  were  thus  made  available  for 
renewed  use.  So  destructive  of  literary  monuments 
did  this  occasionally  become  that  it  was  necessary 
at  the  end  of  the  seventh  century,  for  instance,  to 
forbid  the  destruction  of  perfect  manuscripts  of 
the  Scriptures  or  the  Fathers  by  a  synodal  decree. 
The  passage  of  time  brings  out  again,  perhaps  by  a 
chemical  action  of  the  atmosphere,  though  often  very 
faintly,  the  lines  of  the  older  writing  in  such  twice- 
written  codices — unless,  indeed,  the  erasure  was  per- 
formed by  some  sucli  perfect  method  as  rubbing  down 
the  softened  surface  of  the  vellum  itself  with  pumice- 
stone.  Such  codices  are  called  "  codices  rescripti,"  or 
"  palimpsests,"  and  some  of  our  most  valuable  texts, 
classical  and  Biblical  alike,  are  of  this  kind.  For 
example,  the  precious  Codex  Ephraemi  at  Paris,  so 
called  because  the  top  (later)   writing  contains    the 


38  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

works  of  Ephrem  the  Syrian,  is  a  palimpsest  of  a 
fifth -century  New  Testament  (cited  as  C).  So  also 
Codex  Z  at  Dublin  consists  of  some  very  valuable 
sixth-century  fragments  of  Matthew  peeping  out  from 
beneath  some  patristic  writings.  I^-  H,  K,  W^-  ^-  '•  are 
other  New  Testament  examples.  The  deciphering  of 
such  erased  writing  is  a  difficult  and  painful  task, 
even  with  the  assistance  of  chemical  mixtures  for 
bringing  out  the  faint  lines. 

The  difficulty  of  consulting  a  manuscript  New 
Testament  in  the  earliest  ages  was  largely  increased  by 
the  total  lack  of  all  those  aids  to  the  eye  which  later 
editing  has  gradually  invented,  and  introduced  into 
or  attached  to  the  text.  The  eai-liest  manuscripts, 
and  no  doubt  the  autographs,  were  written  even 
without  divisions  between  the  words.  The  unbroken 
succession  of  letters  ran  froih  the  beginning  to  the 
end  of  each  line,  and  the  division  of  these  letters  into 
words,  clauses,  sentences,  and  paragraphs,  was  left  to 
the  good  sense  of  each  individual  reader.  Each 
book  of  the  New  Testament,  by  this  arrangement, 
stood  as  a  single  word,  and,  at  each  opening  of  tlio 
papyrus  roll  or  vellum  codex,  a  series  of  solid  columns 
alone  confronted  the  eye.  The  difficulty  which  an 
unti-ained  eye  would  find  in  reading  such  a  text  must 
not  be  taken  as  a  standard  for  the  readers  of  that 
day,  but  it  is  obvious  that  reading  Avas  a  severer 
task  under  such  circumstances  than  it  is  now. 
Let  the  student  exercise  himself  in  dividing  into 
its  words  and  clauses  the  following  passage,  the 
line  divisions  of  which  are  those  of  Codex  Vaticanus 


THE  MATTER    OF  CRITICISM.  39 

(^PXHToyeY^rreAiOY 
iYXYYiOY0YKA96OCre 

rP<^nT(\l  6  NT(jOH  CM  <^TCO 

npo4)HTH  I  AoYAnocTcA 

•  A60TON<^rreAONMOY 

nponpoc(jonoYCOYOC 

KATACKeY^CeiTH  NOAO 

coy4>wnhBo6ontoc 

We  liave  no  means  of  discovering  when  editorial 
care  began  to  be  expended  in  inventing  helps  to  easy 
reading  and  introducing  them  into  these  unbroken 
columns.  No  existing  manuscript  is  wholly  without 
such  helps,  although  the  oldest  have  them  rarely 
and  fitfully.  Even  our  oldest  manuscript,  Codex 
Vaticanus  (B),  which  comes  to  us  from  the  early  fourth 
century,  occasionally  marks  a  break  in  the  sense  by 
a  point  at  the  height  of  the  top  of  the  letter  or  by 
a  little  blank  space,  and  begins  a  new  paragraph  now 
and  then  by  allowing  the  first  letter  of  the  line  to 
project  a  little  beyond  the  edge  of  the  column.  But 
it  has  no  capital  letters,  no  divisions  between  the 
words,  no  further  punctuation,  no  breathings,  no 
accents.  Our  next  oldest  manuscript.  Codex  Sinaiti- 
cus  {^),  which  also  is  as  old  as  the  fourth  century, 
allows  the  letter  that  begins  the  new  paragraph  to 
stand  entirely  outside  the  column,  and,  like  B,  has  a 
single  point  irregularly  for  punctuation  ;  but  it,  too, 
lacks  all  breithings,  accents,  further  punctuation, 
and  divisions  between  words.  In  Codex  Alexandrinus 
(A),  of  the  fifth  century,  capitals  (that  is,  larger 
letters  than  those  in  the  text)  occur  in  the  margin 
at  the  beginning  of    paragraphs.      In  Codex  Claro- 


40  TEXTUAL   CBITICISM. 

montanus  (D2),  of  the  sixth  century,  although  the 
text  is  continuous,  the  words  are  divided  in  the 
inscriptions  and  subscriptions  of  the  several  books. 
Breathings  and  accents  do  not  occur  until  later  ;  the 
latter  probably  not  until  the  eighth  century.  Thus 
gradually  the  text  took  upon  itself  more  and  more  of 
the  helps  to  easy  reading  which  are  now  in  universal 
use,  until  the  later  minuscules  were  furnished  almost 
as  fully  as  modern  printed  copies. 

The  most  interesting  attempt  of  early  times  to 
provide  a  handy  edition  of  the  New  Testament, 
account  of  which  has  come  down  to  us,  was  that 
made  by  Euthalius,  a  deacon  of  Alexandria,  who 
published  an  edition  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul  in 
A.D.  458,  and,  shortly  afterwards,  a  similar  edition 
of  the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles.  His  editions 
furnished  a  complete  system  of  prologues,  prefaces, 
lists  of  quotations  sacred  and  profane  found  in  the 
books,  and  catalogues  of  chapters  and  ecclesiastical 
lections.  In  addition  to  this,  the  lections  and 
cliapters  were  marked  in  the  mai-gin  of  the  text 
itself,  where  also  every  fiftieth  line  (or  cttixos)  was 
indicated  by  its  appropriate  numeral.  Whether  he 
also  broke  up  the  text  into  short  lines  of  varied 
length  designed  to  aid  in  public  reading — each  line 
(called  "  colon  "  or  ''  comma  ")  forming  a  sense-clause 
— is  more  doubtful,  but  appears  possible.  At  all 
events,  it  is  important  that  we  do  not  confuse  the 
o-TLxoi,  which  Euthalius  certainly  accurately  counted 
and  numl)ered,  with  the  cola  or  commata  with  which 
he  may  also  have  busied  himself.  Just  as  the  "  em  " 
of  a  modern  printing  office  is  a  fixed  affair  and  the 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  41 

unit  of  measurement  for  the  work  clone  by  the 
compositor,  so  in  ancient  times  the  a-TC)(o<s  was  a 
line  of  set  length,  according  to  the  number  of  which 
included  in  any  writing,  in  whatever  line-lengths  it 
was  actually  written,  the  length  of  the  book  was 
estimated  and  the  pay  of  the  scribe  calculated. 
The  actual  length  of  the  standard  Greek  oT-t^o? 
appears  to  have  been  that  of  the  average  hexameter 
line;  and  it  is  apparent  at  once  that  accurately  to 
estimate  these  and  mark  every  fiftieth  one  on  the 
margin  of  New  Testament  MSS.  presented  a  means 
of  referring  to  each  passage  which  would  be  in- 
dependent of  the  form  of  the  particular  manuscript. 
The  name  cttlxos  was  often  applied  also  to  the  comma 
or  colon,  which  differed  from  the  (ttlxos,  technically 
so  called,  not  only  in  having  to  do  with  the  sense,  but 
also  in  being  of  varied  length.  It  was  to  the  writings 
of  the  orators  and  other  books  much  used  in  public 
reading  that  the  colon-writing  was  first  applied. 
Thence  it  was  taken  over  into  the  poetical  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  Jerome  proposed  to  introduce  it 
into  the  prophets.  Whether  Euthalius  introduced  it 
into  the  New  Testament  or  adopted  it  into  his  edition 
of  the  New  Testament  books  or  not,  it  first  appears  in 
extant  New  Testament  codices  not  long  after  his  time. 
The  great  examples  of  it  are  Codex  Bezse  (D)  of 
the  Gospels  and  Acts,  and  its  companion,  Codex 
Claromontanus  (Dg)  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  as  well 
as  H3  of  Paul.  As  these  clause-lines  varied  much 
in  length,  the  writing  in  such  manuscripts  is  far  from 
compact,  and  much  veUum  is  wasted  ;  hence,  some- 
times these  "  o-tlxol"  are   divided  from   one  another 


42  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

by  a  point,  and  the  manuscript  written  solidly.     Such 
a  manuscript  is  K  of  the  Gospels. 

Euthalius  is  not  to  be  accounted  the  inventor  of 
the  lessons  or  the  chapters  which  he  marked  in  his 
editions.  He  nowhere  claims  to  be  their  author,  and 
he  records  two  separate  schemes  of  chapter-division  in 
the  Acts.  When  the  New  Testament  was  first  divided 
into  chaj)ters  we  have  no  data  for  determining. 
Clement  of  Alexandria  already  speaks  of  pericopes, 
Tertullian  of  capitula,  and  Dionysius  of  Alexandria 
of  Ke(f)d\eLa.  Our  oldest  manuscripts  already  bear 
them  on  their  margins,  and  have  inherited  them 
from  a  past  older  than  themselves.  For  example,  the 
chapters  in  Codex  Yaticanus  (B)  for  Paul's  Epistles 
are  numbered  consecutively  throughout  the  book, 
and  although  Hebrews  stands  immediately  after 
2  Thessalonians  in  the  Codex,  the  numerals  attached 
to  the  chapters  prove  that  they  were  adopted  from 
a  manuscript  in  which  Hebrews  stood  next  after 
Galatians.  Again,  this  same  Codex  (B)  presents  two 
separate  systems  of  chapters  for  Paul  and  the  Acts 
and  Catholic.  Epistles  alike,  which  could  scarcely  bo 
unless  both  had  been  older  than  it.  The  most  im- 
portant of  the  chapter-divisions  in  the  Gospels  is  that 
which  apparently  became  the  commonly  accepted  one 
(found  in  A,  C,  N,  E,  Z,  etc.),  and  which  is  called  the 
tltXol  from  the  circumstance  that  the  "  titles "  of 
these  chapters  are  gathered  into  tables  at  the  begin- 
ning of  each  Gospel  or  wiitten  at  the  top  or  foot  of 
each  page.  To  these  tltXoi  correspond  in  Acts  and 
the  Epistles  the  Ke<^aXcta  of  Euthalius.  A  still 
more  interesting  division  in  the  Gospels  is  that  which 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  43 

goes  under  the  name  of  the  Eusebian  (or  Ammonian) 
sections  and  Eusebian  canons,  the  object  of  which 
appears  to  have  been  harmonistic.  Each  Gospel  was 
divided  into  shorter  or  longer  numbered  sections : 
355  in  Matthew,  233  in  Mark,  342  in  Luke,  and  232 
in  John.  Then  ten  tables  or  lists  were  formed  called 
"  canons,"  the  first  of  which  contained  all  the  passages 
common  to  all  four  Gospels ;  the  second,  third  and 
fourth  those  common  to  any  given  three;  the  fifth 
to  the  ninth  inclusive  those  common  to  any  two,  and 
the  tenth  those  peculiar  to  one.  By  attaching  to  the 
number  of  each  section  in  the  margin  of  the  text  the 
number  of  the  list  or  "  canon  "  to  which  it  belonged, 
a  very  complete  harmonistic  system,  or  at  least  system 
of   reference    to    parallel    passages,    resulted.       Thus, 

opposite    John    xv.    1\)   was    written       p       or     .^  — 

whence  we  learn  that  this  is  the  139th  section  of 
John,  and  belongs  to  the  third  canon ;  on  turning  to 
the  canons,  the  third  is  found  to  contain  passages 
common  to  John,  Matthew,  and  Luke,  and  in  it, 
ojDposite  John  139  we  find  Matthew  90  and  Luke  58. 
It  is  easy  to  turn  to  these  sections  in  the  text  and 
read  the  parallel  passages  to  John  139.  Codex  A  of 
the  fifth  century  is  the  oldest  codex  that  preserves 
this  system  complete.  C,  D,  and  many  others,  have 
the  sections,  but  not  the  canons.  Sometimes  the 
harmonistic  information  is  entered  on  the  margin  of 
each  page.  No  codex  which  has  any  part  of  this 
system  at  first  hand  can  be  older  than  Eusebius. 

The  early  history  of  the  lections  drawn  from   the 
Greek  Testament  is  very  obscure.     At  an  early  peiiod, 


44  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

however,  it  became  the  custom  to  mark  the  begin- 
ning and  end  of  each  in  the  margin  of  continuons 
copies  of  the  Greek  Testament,  which  were  thus 
redacted  for  use  in  pubhc  service.  This  was  one  of 
the  excellences  of  Euthalius'  editions.  The  earliest 
MS.  which  possesses  a  table  of  the  lessons  prefixed  to 
the  text  is  probably  Codex  Cyprius  (K),  of  the  ninth 
century  ;  and  the  arrangement  of  such  tables  for  Acts 
and  the  Epistles  is  apparently  claimed  to  himself  by 
Euthalius.  Many  Greek  MSS.  after  the  eighth  and 
ninth  centuries  mark  the  beginning  of    the  lections 

with  the  word  apxn  ^^^    ^    oi'  "^P?  "^^^^  ^1^®   ^^^  with 

the  word   TeXo<;  or      ,    or  re  inserted   into   the   text, 
re 

but  written  in  coloured,  commonly  vermilion  ink. 
It  became  the  custom  also  to  insert  in  the  margin 
rubrics  directing  the  substitution  of  words  for  the 
text  as  it  stood,  in  the  public  reading.  For  example, 
in  Luke  x.  24  we  read,  "  And  behold  a  certain  lawyer 
arose,"  but  the  margin  directs  us  to  read,  "  A  certain 
lawyer  came  to  Jesus,  tempting  him  and  saying  : 
Master,"  etc.  So  at  Luke  x.  22  we  are  directed 
to  read,  "  And  turning  to  His  disciples,  He  said." 
Naturally  enough,  fi-om  these  MSS.  many  erroneous 
readings  crept  out  of  the  margin  into  the  text 
itself.  Codex  7  of  the  Gospels  piesents  a  very  per- 
fect specimen  of  a  manuscript  redacted  for  liturgical 
use. 

A  glance  like  this  over  the  origin  of  the  various 
divisions  that  have  been  introduced  into  the  New 
Testament   text    can    scarcely    fail    to   impress    the 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  45 

fc-tnclent  with  the  unauthoritative  character  of  them 
all.  Least  of  all  can  the  ordinary  divisions  of  our 
modern  Bibles  into  chapters  and  verses  be  permitted 
to  affect  our  free  treatment  of  the  text.  No  one  of 
the  ancient  divisions  found  in  the  manuscripts 
passed  over  into  modern  Bibles.  Our  chapters  were 
invented  apparently  by  Stephen  Langton  (►1^1228), 
and  were  first  applied  to  the  Latin  Vulgate,  only 
thence  finding  their  way  gradually  into  the  printed 
Greek  Testament.  Our  verses  were  made  by  Eobert 
Stephen  "  inter  equitandum,"  on  a  journey  from  Paris 
to  Geneva,  and  were  first  introduced  into  the  Greek 
Testament  published  by  him  in  155L  The  inspired 
text  consists  of  the  simple  succession  of  letters,  and 
must  be  separated  into  words  and  sections  and  para- 
graphs by  each  scholar  for  himself. 

No  attempt  was  made  to  give  to  the  earlier  MSS. 
any  further  beauty  than  that  which  resulted  from  the 
use  of  the  best  materials  and  the  exquisitely  neat  and 
regular  writing.  The  vellum  of  Codex  Sinaiticus 
(n)  is  made  from  the  finest  antelope  skin,  and  that 
of  B,  A,  Dg,  N  is  not  unworthy  of  comparison  with 
it ;  while  the  regularity  and  beauty  of  the  hand  in 
which  these  manuscripts  are  written  challenge  the 
admiration  of  all  beholders.  Ornamental  capitals  and 
colophons  were,  however,  soon  introduced,  and  red 
ink  w^as  used  for  variety  in  them  as  well  as  in  various' 
rubrics  and  the  like.  The  most  sumptuous  of  the 
early  manuscripts  are  the  "  purple  manuscripts," 
the  vellum  of  which  is  dyed  purple  or  crimson  and 
the  text  written  upon  it  in  silver  and  gold.  Jerome 
scoft'ed  at  such  ''  editions  de  luxe,"  as  possessing  more 


46  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

external  splendour  than  inner  excellence.  Several  of 
the  most  valuable  codices  of  the  Old  Latin  version 
(as,  e.g.,  those  cited  as  b,  f,  e,  i),  as  well  as  the 
famous  Codex  Argenteus  of  the  Gothic  version,  belong 
to  this  class.  The  purple  MSS.  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment come  mainly  from  the  sixth  century  :  such  are 
N,  '%,  $.  Of  these  %  (Codex  Rossanensis)  is  especially 
noteworthy,  inasmuch  as  it  is  adorned  also  with 
a  collection  of  miniatures,  and  is  the  earliest  New 
Testament  manuscript  so  ornamenteTi,  and  shares 
this  honour  with  only  one  other  Biblical  manuscript, 
a  purple  codex  of  Genesis  at  Vienna.  The  art  of 
dyeing  MSS.  was  revived  under  Charlemagne  and  his 
successors,  giving  us  a  series  of  minuscule  purples 
of  the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries,  such  as  the  St. 
Petersburg  codex,  lately  published  by  Belsheim,  and 
the  second  purple  codex  discovered  at  Berat  by  the 
Abbe  Batiffol. 

With  these  preliminaries,  we  may  proceed  next  to 
catalogue  the  Uncial  Manuscripts  that  have  come 
down  to  us.  There  have,  at  the  present  writing,  been 
placed  on  the  lists  some  eighty-nine  of  them  all  told, 
which  are  cited  by  the  following  symbols  : — 

{<  A  B  B^P'"'  C  W^^-  ^''^-  D^^"^  E  E'^''*^-  E^="'i  F  F^'^''^ 

pa.    Q    QAct.    |-Q.Paul  ^  ^]    Qh.    JJ    JjAct.    nPaul 
Jl. 2.3. 4.5.0.7.     Jb     J^     J^Cath.  Paul      ^     JJ^^^-  Catli.  Paul 

M    M^'^^'^   N   N'^-   N^=^^^^   0   O'^-^'^-*^ '''•'^■^-  O^'^^^-" 

Qb.  Paul    p    pAct.  Cath.  Paul.  Apoc.   Q    QP:iul    ^    B/^aul 
g   fji   rjb.c.d.e.f.    'J'woi    -^J   y   'W'a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.  X   Y    Z 

r  A  [  =  Q^^''^]  (H)a.b.c.d.o.f.g.h.  A  s  n  5  ^  =  89 
sepaiate  copies. 


THE   MATTER   OF   CRITICISM.  47 

To  these  should  be  added  another  inckiding  some 
words  from  1  Tim.  vi.  2  and  iii.  15,  16,  described  by 
Zahn  in  his  Forschungen  zur  Geschichte  des  N.T. 
Kanons,  Theil  iii.,  p.  277,  bringing  the  total  up  to  90. 

These  manuscripts  are  distributed  among  the  various 
sections  of  the  New  Testament  as  follows : — 

Uncial  MSS.  of  the  Gospels  : — 

j^ABCDEFF^GH  I^  ^  ^ "  I^  K  L  M  N  N-  O 

Qa.b.c.d.e.f.g.    P    Q    K    S    T    T^-^-d.e.f.    rpwoi    JJ    -y 
•Y\/'a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.  X  Y  Z  T  A   ©a-b-cd.e.f.g.h.   ^    W    H 

S<J>=  67. 

Uncial  MSS.  of  the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles  : — 

«  A  B  C  D  E^  P^  G^  Gb  H2  I2-«  K,  L,  P2=  16, 
of  which  K  does  not  contain  the  Acts,  and 
only  X  A  B  C  K2  L2  P2  contain  the  Catholic 
Epistles. 

Uncial  MSS.  of  Paul's  Epistles  :— 

5<  A  B  C  D2  Eg  F2  F^  G ,  H3  12  K.  L.  M2  N2  O2 
0^2  P2  Q2  1^2  =  20,  to  which  Zahn's  Codex 
is  to  be  added,  maki   ^21. 

Uncial  MSS.  of  the  Apocalj^se : — 

^  A  B2  C  P2  =  5. 

They  are  distributed  according  to  the  centuries  in 
which  they  were  wi'itten  as  follows  : — 

Uncial  MSS,  of  the  fourth  century  :  — 

wS  B  =  2. 
Uncial  MSS.  of  the  fifth  century : — 

A  C  P2  3.  p  Q  Q   T  T^^°i  =  10. 


48  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

Uncial  MSS.  of  the  sixth  century : — 

D  Dy  E^  H3  I^  7-  N  N^  O2  0  2  0^=  P  E  T^  T*=  '^   Z 
©caf.g.  ^  |-^  ,^j^(j  Zahn's  Codex?]  =  24. 

Uncial  MSS.  of  the  seventh  century : — 
.  F^  G2  I^'-*^-  O^  T^  ©^-b-  Eg  =  9. 

Uncial  MSS.  of  the  eighth  century : — 
Bg  E  L  W'^^  Y  ©-^  S  =  8. 

Uncial  MSS.  of  the  ninth  century : — 

E3  F  F2  Gb  G3  H2  K  K2  L2  M  M,  N2  0  0^-  *  g  Po 
Tf  Y  ^cdefgh.  X  r  A  A  n  =  31. 

Uncial  MSS.  of  the  tenth  century : — 
G  H  0^  S  U  ©'^  =  6. 

Yery  many  of  these  MSS.  are  the  merest  frag- 
ments. 5<  alone  contains  the  whole  New  Testament. 
B  contains  the  whole  up  to  the  middle  of  Hebrews, 
and  thence  lacks  part  of  Hebrews,  the  Pastoral 
Epistles,  Philemon,  and  the  Apocalypse.  A  contains 
all  but  a  few  chapters.  C  contains  fragments  of 
nearly  every  book.  On  the  other  hand,  many  manu- 
scripts have  received  such  marginal  or  other  correction 
by  the  first  or  later  hands  as  to  give  us  practically 
manuscripts  within  manuscripts.  These  various  hands 
are  usually  quoted  by  numerals,  letters,  or  asterisks 
placed  at  the  top  of  the  letter  symbolising  the  MS., 
though  these  must  not  be  confounded  with  the 
compound  symbols  given  in  the  list  above  (such 
as  r-^-^-  I^  N'^  O''*-^''-  etc.),  which  represent  separate 
fragments  classed  thus  together  under  one  symbol 
for  convenience'  sake.     All  other  signs  attached  to 


THE   MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  49 

the  top  of  the  symbol  besides  those  enumerated  in 
the  lists  above,  represent  different  hands  which  have 
been  correcting  the  manuscript  designated  by  the 
symbol.  Thus  D*  D**  D***,  or  D*  D^  J)\  or 
D*  jy^  D""  would  be  three  ways  (all  of  which  are  in 
use)  of  designating  D  as  originally  written  (D'''),  and 
the  corrections  of  the  second  (D**,  D^,  or  D^)  and 
third  (D***,  D^,  or  D*^)  hands.  If  no  hand  has 
corrected  the  reading  the  manuscript  is  cited  simply 
as  D ;  where  it  is  cited  as  D*,  this  advertises  to  us 
that  a  correction  may  be  looked  for  elsewhere  in  the 
digest.  The  correctors  of  our  oldest  manuscripts, 
such  as  B,  j<,  C,  are  of  importance.  B^  is  of  the 
fourth  century ;  B^  of  the  tenth  or  eleventh ;  C^  of 
the  sixth ;  and  C^  of  the  ninth,  x  has  been  cor- 
rected by  very  many  hands,  which  are  cited  by 
Tischendorf  by  the  following  system :  x^  is  of  the 
fourth  century ;  ^b  is  of  the  sixth ;  four  separate 
correctors  of  the  seventh  century  are  cited  as  s'^, 
j^cbj  5^cc,  ^cc--  ;  ^e  is  of  the  twelfth  century.  How 
manuscripts  came  to  be  furnished  with  such  series 
of  successive  corrections  may  be  readily  understood 
if  we  will  only  bear  in  mind  the  different  conditions 
under  which  a  manuscript  came  into  and  continued 
in  being  from  those  governing  a  printed  book.  Not 
unfrequently  the  fortunate  owner  of  a  copy,  on 
obtaining  access  to  another,  would  compare  the  two 
more  or  less  accurately  throughout,  and  enter  the 
differences ;  and  thus  (as  has  happened  in  the  case 
of  67  of  Paul  as  compared  with  67**)  has  given 
himself  on  the  margin  a  far  better  text  than  his  copy 
contained  in  itself. 

4 


50  TEXTUAL   CBITICISM. 

It  would  be  of  interest  to  add  here  a  brief  teclinical 
description  of  each  of  the  MSS.  na-med  by  symbol 
above.  The  beginner  may,  however,  dispense  for  the 
time  with  matter  of  this  sort ;  and  when  he  feels 
the  need  of  it,  it  is  better  for  him  to  seek  it  where 
it  can  be  found  in  full.  The  best  source  of  such 
information  is  the  Prolegomena  to  Tischendorf 's  eighth 
edition,  which  have  been  prepared  by  Dr.  Caspar 
Rene  Gregory,  and  published  by  Hinrichs  (in  Latin) 
at  Leipzig.  The  most  comprehensive  treatise  of  the 
sort  in  English  is  Dr.  Scrivener's  "  Plain  Intro- 
duction to  the  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament," 
third  edition  (Cambridge  :  Deighton,  Bell,  &  Co., 
1883),  in  connection  with  which  must  be  used  the 
little  pamphlet,  called  "  Notes  on  Scrivener's  '  Plain 
Introduction,  etc'  "  chiefly  from  the  memoranda  of 
the  late  Professor  Ezra  Abbot,  and  published  by  Dr. 
Thayer  (London:  Ward,  Lock,  &  Co.).  It  will  be 
sufficient  here  to  give  a  compressed  list  of  the  uncial 
manuscripts. 

(1)   Uncial  MSS.  of  the  Gospels. 
N\  Sinaiticus,  nunc  Petropolitanus.     Srec.  lY.     Con- 
tains the  whole  New  Testament. 

A.  Alexandrinus  Londinensis.    Srec.  V.    Contains  the 

whole  New  Testament,  except  Matthew  i.  1  to 
XXV.  6  ;  John  vi.  50  to  viii.  52  ;  and  2  Corinthians 
iv.  13  to  xii.  7. 

B.  Vaticanus  Eomie.     S?ec.  IV.     Contains  the  whole 

New  Testament,  except  Hebrews  ix.  14  to 
xiii.  25  ;  1  and  2  Timothy,  Titus,  Philemon, 
and  the  ApocalypsCi 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  51 

C.  Ephraemi    Syri    rescriptus    Parisiensis.     Ssec.    Y. 

Contains    fragments    of    all    the   books,  except 
2  Thessalonians  and  2  John. 

D.  Bezse   Cantabrigiensis.     Ssec.    YI.     Contains   the 

Gospels  and  Acts,  with  some  small  lacnnse. 

E.  Basiliensis.   Ssec.  YIII.  Contains  the  Gospels  with 

lacimse. 

F.  Boreeli  Rheno-Traiectinus.    Ssec.  IX.  Contains  the 

Gospels  with  lacunae. 
F'\  Margo    Octateuchi   Coisliniani  Parisiensis.       Ssec. 
YII.     Contains  fragments  of  the  Gospels,  Acts, 
and  Pauline  Epistles. 

G.  Seidelii  Londinensis.     S?ec.   IX.  or  X.     Contains 

the  Gospels  with  lacunse. 
H.  Seidelii  Hamburgensis.    Sasc.  IX.  or  X.      Contains 

the  Gospels  with  lacun?e. 
11.3.4.7.^  Petropolitani  rescripti.     S^ec.  Y.,  Y,  YI.,  YI. 

Contain  fragments  of  the  Gospels. 
I^.  Londinensis  rescriptus.   Stec.  Y.     Contains  a  frag- 
ment of  John. 
K.  Cyprius  Parisiensis.    Seec.  IX.  Contains  the  whole 

of  the  Gospels. 
L.  Regius    Parisiensis.     Ssec.    YIII.     Contains    the 

Gospels  with  lacunae. 
M.  Campianus  Parisiensis.    Srec.    IX.     Contains  the 

whole  of  the  Gospels. 
N.  Purpareus.     Srec.  YI.     Contains  fragments  of  the 

Gospels. 
N^.  Cairensis.       Sasc.    YI.      Contains    fragments    of 

Mark. 
0.  Moscuensis.      Sa?c.  IX;       Contains    fragments    of 

John; 


52  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

Qa.b.c.d.e.f.g.  Gruelferljytanus,  Bodleianus,  Veronensis, 
Turicensis,  Sangallensis,  Moscuensis,  Parisiensis. 
S^c.  IX.,  X.,  YI.,  VII.,  IX.,  IX.,  IX.  Contain 
the  hymns  of  Lnke  i.  and  ii. 

P.  Guelferbytanus  rescriptus.  Saec.  YI.  Contains 
fragments  of  the  Gospels. 

Q.  Guelferbytanus  rescriptus.  Sa^c.  Y.  Contains  frag- 
ments of  Luke  and  John. 

R.  Nitriensis,  nunc  Londinensis,  rescriptus.  S^c.  YI. 
Contains  fragments  of  Luke. 

S.  Yaticanus  Rom^e.    ScBc.  X.     Contains  the  Gospels. 

T.  Borgianus  Pomie.  Sa?c.  Y.  Contains  fragments  of 
Luke  and  John. 

rpb.c.d.e.f.  Petropolitanus,  Porfirianus  Chiovensis,  Bor- 
gianus Bom^e,  Cantabrigiensis,  Mellsise  Horneri. 
Sa3C.  YL,  YI.,  YIL,  YL,  IX.  Contain  small 
fragments  of  the  Gospels. 

rpwoi.  Woidii.  Ssec.  Y.  Contains  fragments  of  Luke 
and  John. 

U.  Marcianus  Yenetus.  Stec.  IX.  or  X.  Contains 
the  Gospels. 

Y.  Moscuensis.  »ScT?c.  IX.  Contains  the  Gospels  up 
to  John  vii.  39,  with  some  lacuna?. 

Y^ra.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.  Parisiensis,  Neapolitanus  Borbonicus, 
Sangallensis,  Cantabrigiensis,  Oxoniensis  et 
Atho.,  Oxoniensis,  Londinensis,  Oxoniensis.  Sai'c. 
YIIL,  YIIL,  IX.,  IX.,  IX.,  IX.,  IX.,  IX. 
C*ontain  fragments  of  the  Gospels. 

X.  Monacensis.  Sa'C.  IX.  or  X.  Contains  fragments 
of  the  Gospels. 

Y.  Barberinus  Eoma3.  Siec.  YIII.  Contains  a  frag- 
ment of  John. 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  53 

Z.  Dublinensis  rescriptus.  Sa3c.  VI.  Contains  frag- 
ments of  Matthew. 

r.  Tischendorfianus  IV.  Sa^c.  IX.  or  X.  Contains 
the  Gospels  with  l-acunse. 

A.  Sangallensis.  Sa?c.  IX.  or  X.  Contains  the 
Gospels,  except  John  xix.  17 — 35. 

O^.  Tischendorfianus  Lipsiensis.  Ssec.  VII.  Contains 
a  fragment  of  Matthew. 

Qb.c.d.e.f.g.b.  Petropolitani  et  Porfiriani  Chiovenses. 
Sa?c.  VII.,  VI.,  VII.  or  VIII.,  VI.,  VI.,  VI., 
IX.  or  X.     Contain  fragments  of  the  Gospels. 

A.  Tischendorfianus  III.  Oxoniensis.  Stec.  IX.  Con- 
tains Luke  and  John. 

H.  Zacynthius  Londinensis.  Sa^c.  VIII.  Contains 
fragments  of  Luke. 

n.  Petropolitanus.  Sa^c.  IX.  Contains  the  Gospels 
wdth  lacunre. 

%.  Possanensis  Purpureus.  Sa?c.  VI.  Contains 
Matthew  and  Mark,  except  Mark  xvi.  14—20. 

^.  Beratinus  Purpureus,  Sa?c.  VI  (?).  Contains  the 
Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark  with  lacume. 

(2)    Uncial  MSS.  of  the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles. 

j<  A  B  C  D.  See  under  these  same  symbols  for  the 
Gospels. 

E.  Laudianus  Oxoniensis.  Stec.  VI.  Contains  Acts 
with  lacuna?. 

F'^.   See  under  the  same  symbol  for  the  Gospels. 

G.  Petropolitanus.  Ssec.  VII.  Contains  a  fragment 
of  Acts. 

G'\  Vaticanus  Pompe.  Stec.  IX  (?).  Contains  frag- 
ments of  Acts. 


54  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

11.  Mutinensis.    S£bc.  IX.    Contains  Acts  with  lacnn?e. 
];2.o.6._  Petropolitani    rescripti.     Ssec.    V.,    YII.,  VII. 

Contain  fragments  of  Acts. 

K.  Moscuensis.  Ssec.  IX.  Contains  Catholic  Epistles 
and  Pauline  Epistles,  with  lacunae  in  the  latter. 

L.  Angelicus  RoniEe.  Ssec.  IX.  Acts  with  lacunae, 
Catholic  Epistles  entire,  and  Paul's  Epistles  up 
to  Hebrews  xiii.  10. 

P.  Porfirianus  Chiovensis.  Saec.  IX.  Contains  Acts, 
Catholic  Epistles,  Paul's  Epistles,  and  the  Apoca- 
lypse, with  lacunae. 

(3)    Uncial  MSS.  of  the  E'pistles  of  Paul. 

i^'A  B  C.  See  under  the  same  symbols  of  the  Gospels. 

D.  Claromontanus    Parisiensis.     Saec.  YI.      Contains 

the  Epistles  of  Paul. 

E.  Sangermanensis,    nunc    Petropolitamis.      Saec.  IX. 

Contains  Paul  with  lacunae. 

F.  Augiensis    Cantabrigiensis.     Sa^c.  IX.       Contains 

Paul  with  lacunar,  except  Hebrews. 
F*.  See  under  this  symbol  in  the  Gospels. 

G.  Boirnerianus     Dresdensis.       Sa^c.     IX.      Contains 

Paul  with  lacunae,  except  Hebrews. 
H.  Parisiensis,  Moscuensis,  et  al.     Sa3c.  VI.     Contains 
fragments  of  Paul. 

12.  Petropolitanus.     Srec.  V.     Contains  fragments  of 

1  Corinthians  and  Titus. 
K.  See    under   this     symbol    of     Acts    and    Catholic 

Epistles. 
L.   See   under    this    symbol    of    Acts    and    Catholic 

Epistles. 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  55 

M.  Londinensis  et  Hamburgensis.  Ssec.  IX.  Con- 
tains fragments  of  1  and  2  Corinthians  and 
Hebrews. 

N.  Petropolitanus.  S?ec.  IX.  Contains  fragments 
of  Galatians  and  Hebrews. 

0.  Petropolitanus.  Sa3C.  YI.  Contains  a  fragment 
of  2  Corinthians. 

O*^.  Moscuensis.  Saec.  YI.  Contains  a  fragment  of 
Ephesians. 

P.  See  under  the  same  symbol  of  Acts  and  Catholic 
Epistles. 

Q.  Porfirianus  Chiovensis  Papyraceus.  Saec.  Y.  Con- 
tains fragments  of  1  Corinthians. 

R.  Cryptoferracensis.  Saec.  YII.  Contains  a  frag- 
ment of  2  Corinthians. 

[S  ?].  Parisiensis.  Sc^c.  lY. — YI.  Contains  frag- 
ments of  1  Timothy. 

(4)   Uncial  MSS.  of  the  Ai^tocahjpse. 

5<  A  C.   KSee  under  the  same  symbols  for  the  Gosj)els. 
B.  Yaticanus    Ptomaa.       Saec.     YIII.       Contains    the 

Apocalypse. 
P.  See   under   the    same    symbol    for   the    Acts   and 

Catholic  Epistles. 

It  ought  to  be  noted  that  AY^  above  is  given  the 
symbol  Y  by  Dr.  Scrivener;  that  the  symbol  ^  is 
used  by  Dr.  Scrivener  to  designate  a  codex  which 
has  been  since  found  to  contain  no  part  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  by  Gebhardt  to  designate  the  recon- 
structed  common    parent  of    the  minuscules  13,   69, 


56  TEXTUAL   CRITICLSM. 

124,  346  ;  that  T^  is  Dr.  Scrivener's  Evangelistarium 
299  ;  that  B  of  the  Apoc.  is  cited  by  Dr.  Tregelles 
by  the  symbols  L  and  Q;  and  that  the  symbols 
G-^,  0^'=-^-  of  Tregelles'  Supplement  represent  the 
codices  cited  here  as  Go,  Og,  K^,  Ng,  respectively. 

The  Minuscule  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament, 
while  far  more  numerous  than  the  uncials,  are  later, 
and  therefore,  as  a  class,  of  less  importance.  About 
thirty  of  them  contain  the  whole  New  Testament, 
and  many  contain  more  than  one  section  of  it.  They 
range  in  date  from  the  ninth  to  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury inclusive,  and  present  several  well-marked  types 
of  writing,  on  the  ground  of  which  they  are  separated 
by  palaeographers  into  at  least  four  classes.  They 
differ  in  the  general  character  of  the  text  which  they 
exhibit  less  widely  than  the  extent  of  time  which 
they  cover  might  lead  us  to  expect.  Only  about  one 
hundred  and  fifty  of  them  have  as  yet  been  fully 
cellated,  although  many  more  have  been  partially 
collated,  and  enough  of  this  work  has  been  done  to 
give  us  a  general  knowledge  of  them  as  a  class.  They 
are  cited  for  critical  purposes,  for  the  most  part,  by 
Arabic  numerals.  Full  lists  of  them,  with  the  in- 
formation concerning  each  that  has  been  thus  far 
made  public,  may  be  found  in  the  third  edition  of 
Dr.  Scrivener's  ''  Plain  Introduction."  The  second 
volume  of  Dr.  Gregory's  Prolegomena  to  Tischendorf, 
wliich  is  to  contain  an  account  of  the  minuscules,  is 
not  yet  published,  but  is  expected  to  greatly  increase 
both  the  extent  and  the  accui'acy  of  our  know- 
ledge. 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISE!.  57 

The  following  are  some  of  the  most  interesting  of 
the  minuscules : — 

(1)  Miniscule  Codices  of  the  Gos2^els» 

1—118—131—209.     Basiliensis,  Oxoniensis,  Yati- 
canus,  and  Venetns.     S^ec.  X.  (1),  XIII.,  XI., 
XI.  or  XII.     Four  closely  related  codices,  the 
joint  authority  of  which    preserves  for  us  an 
ancient  common  original. 
13 — 69 — 124 — 346.     Parisiensis,  Leicestrensis,  Vin- 
dobonensis,  and  Mediolanus.     S?ec.  XII.,  XIV., 
XII.,    XII.      Four    codices   which    Professors 
Ferrar  and  Abbot  have  shown  to  be  descended 
from  a  single  not  very  remote  common  original. 
22.  Colbertinus  Parisiensis.      Ssec.  XL 
28.  Colbertinus  Parisiensis.     Ssec.  XI. 
33.  Colbertinus  Parisiensis.     Saec.   XI.    (=  Acts  13, 

Paul  17). 
59.  Cantabrigiensis.     Ssec.  XII. 
66.  Londinensis.     Ssec.  XII. 

81.  Petropolitanus.     Saec.  IX.    Cited  by  Tischendorf 
as  21^^ 
102.  Cantabrigiensis.     Sfec.  XIY.  (=  Acts  102  [k«^^], 
Paul  27  [k^*^--]).     Cited  by  Tischendorf  as  w«''\ 
157.  Urbino-Vaticanus.     Ssec.  XII. 
201.  Londinensis.    Sc^c.  XIY.  (=  Acts  91,  Paul   104, 
Apoc.   b^^'').     Cited   sometimes  as   m*""  in  the 
Gospels,  and  p^*^^'  in  Acts  and  Paul. 
238.  Moscuensis.     Ssec.  XL 
346.  Mediolanus.     S^c.  XII. 
604.  Londinensis.     Ssec.  XL  or  XII. 


58  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

(2)  Minuscide  MSS.  of  the  Acts  and  CalJiulic 
Epistles. 
13.  The  same  as  33  of  the  Gospels. 
27,  Londi^ensi^^      Siec.  XV.  (=  Paul  33). 
29,  Genevensis.     Sasc.  XI.  or  XII.  (=  Paul  35). 
31.  Leicestrensis.      Ssec.  XI Y.  (=  Gospels  69,  Paul 

37,  Apoc.  14). 
36.  Oxoniensis.     S?ec.  XIII. 
40.  Alexandiino-Yaticanus.     Ssec.   XI.  (=  Paul  46, 

Apoc.  12). 
M.  (=  Scrivener's  221).     Sc^c.  XII.  (=  Paul  265). 
61.  Lonclinensis.     S^ec.   XI.     Cited  also  as  lo'"^  and 

08.  Upsal.     Sa3C.  XI.  (=  Paul  73). 

69.  Guelferbytanus.        Sebc.     XIV.     (=    Paul    74, 

Apoc.  30). 
102.  Same  as  102  of  the  Gospels.     Cited  sometimes 

as  k^"-. 
no.  Londinensis.     Sjec.  XII.  (=:  Paul   252).     Cited 

by  Tischendorf  as  a^'^^',  and  Scrivener's  182. 
112.  Londinensis.     Sa^c.  XV.   (=  Paul    254).     Cited 

by  Tischendorf  as  c*^^^',  and  Scrivener's  184. 
137.  Mediolanus.     Sa^c.  XI.  (=  Paul  176). 

(3)  Minuscide  MSS.  of  PcmVs  Einstles. 

5.  Parisiensis.     Siec.  XII.  (=  Gospels  5,  Acts  5). 

6.  Pai-isiensis.     Sa3c.  XI.  (=  Gospels  6,  Acts  6). 
17.  Same  as  Gospels  33. 

23.  Parisiensis.     SiBC.  XI. 

27.  Same  as  Gospels  102.     Cited  sometimes  as  k''^''. 

31.  Londinensis.     Sa>c.  XL  (=  Acts  25,  Apoc.  7). 


TEE  MATTER  OF  CRITICISM.  59 

37.  See  under  Acts  31. 

39.  Oxoniensis.     Ssec.  XI.  or  XII.  {—  Acts  33). 

46.  See  under  Acts  40. 

47.  Oxoniensis.     Sajc.  XI.  or  XII. 

67.   Vindobonensis.      Sage.   XII.  (=  Acts  66,  Apoc. 
34).     The  corrector  of  this  MS.,  marked  67**, 
is  very  valuable. 
73.  See  under  Acts  68. 
80.  Yaticanus.     Sjec.  XI.  (=  Acts  73). 
137.  Parisiensis.     Ssec.  XIII.  {—  Gospels  263,  Acts 

117,  Apoc.  54). 
221.  Cantabrigiensis.     Ssec.    XII.    (—  Gospels     440, 
Acts  111).     Cited  as  o^«^-  by  Tischendorf. 

(4)  Minuscule  MSS.  of  the  Ajmcahjiyse. 

1.   Keuchlini.     Ssec.  XII.     The  only  one  used  by 

Erasmus,  1516. 
7.  See  under  Paul  31. 
14.  See  under  Acts  31. 

38.  Yaticanus.     Saec.  XIII. 

47.  Dresdensis.       Sasc.     XI.    (=  Gospels   241,    Acts 

140,  Paul  120). 
51.  Parisiensis.     Saec.  "XIY.  (—  Gospels    18,    Acts 

113,  Paul  132). 
82.  Monacensis.     Sa3c.  XL    (—  Gospels    179,    Paul 

128). 
95.  Parham.     Sa3c.  XII.  or  XIII.     Cited  sometimes 

as  g'^'^'^. 

The  Lectioxaries  are  rightly  assigned  a  secondary 
place  among  the  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament,  both 
because  they   do  not   give  the  continuous  text    and 


60  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

occasionally  change  the  text  they  do  give  arbitrarily, 
to  fit  it  for  detached  reading,  and  because  they  are 
comparatively  late  in  date.  The  earliest  lectionaries 
hitherto  known  date  from  the  seventh  and  eighth 
centuries,  although  the  papyrus  fragment  which 
Wesserly  published  in  1882  may  come  from  a  cen- 
tury earlier.  Lectionaries  may  be  either  uncial  or 
minuscule,  and  uncial  writing  occurs  among  them 
a  century  later  than  in  manuscripts  of  the  continuous 
text.  No  line  of  division  is  drawn  among  them  on 
the  ground  of  handwriting,  however,  but  all  are 
classed  together,  and  cited  by  Arabic  numerals,  like 
minuscule  copies  of  the  continuous  text.  They  are 
divided  into  two  classes  on  the  ground  of  contents, 
called  Evangelaria  or  Evangelistaria  (which  contain 
lessons  from  the  Gospels),  and  Praxapostoli,  or  some- 
times Lectionaria  (which  contain  lessons  from  the 
Acts  and  the  Epistles).  Dr.  Scrivener,  in  the  third 
edition  of  his  "Plain  Introduction,"  brings  the  cata- 
logue of  the  former  up  to  414,  and  that  of  the 
latter  up  to  127.  A  number  of  them  are,  however, 
twice  counted,  being  Euchologies  or  'ATroo-roXocDayyeXta, 
and  containing  both  the  evayyiXiov  and  the  aiToa-ToXo^. 
Upwards  of  eighty  of  the  lectionaries  on  our  lists 
are  written  in  uncial  letters.  Lectionaries  have 
hitherto  been  less  used  by  critics  than  could  be 
desired.  It  is  not  to  be  hoped,  doubtless,  that  very 
much  material  of  the  first  value  can  be  obtained 
from  documents  so  late,  and  representing  a  system 
of  lessons  which  itself  cannot  be  traced  farther  back 
than  the  latter  part  of  the  fourtli  century.  But 
the    results    of  the  little  work  already  expended    on 


TFIE   MATTEB   OF   CFdTICIHM,  61 

them  are,  within  the  limits  of  legitimate  ho]3e,  veiy 
encouraging. 

2.  Versions   of  the  New  Testament. 

The  number  and  variety  of  early  versions  of  the 
New  Testament  are  a  matter  of  w^onder  second  only 
to  the  number  of  Greek  MSS.  that  have  come 
down  to  us.  Wherever  Christianity  penetrated,  the 
evangelists  carried  the  Divine  word  in  their  hands 
and  gave  it  to  the  people  in  their  own  tongues  ;  and 
although  the  languages  in  which  these  early  versions 
were  written  have  now  in  every^case  become  obsolete, 
the  versions  remain  to  us,  sometimes  still  in  use  in 
public  w^orship,  sometimes  extant  only  in  long-for- 
gotten and  fragmentary  codices,  as  witnesses  to  the 
popular  character  of  early  Christianity,  as  well  as  to 
the  text  of  the  New  Testament  that  was  read  and 
honoured  in  the  primitive  ages  of  the  Church.  The 
value  of  the  testimony  of  the  versions  is  much 
enhanced  by  the  fact  that  several  of  them  were  made 
at  an  age  far  earlier  than  our  most  ancient  MSS.  of 
the  Greek  text.  The  Syriac,  Latin,  and  Coptic  speak- 
ing peoples  all  had  translations  of  the  New  Testament 
in  the  second  century,  and  fragments  at  least  of  these 
versions  are  still  extant.  The  Abyssinians  and  Goths 
received  the  New  Testament  in  their  own  tongues 
at  about  the  time  when  our  oldest  remaining  Greek 
MSS.  were  penned ;  at  about  the  same  time  the 
older  Syriac  and  Latin  versions  were  re\'ised  to 
suit  them  to  enlarged  use  and  conform  them  to  the 
texts  most  esteemed  at  the  time.  But  little  later 
the  Armenians  obtained  a  national  Bible,  and  other 


62  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

Syriao  revisions  or  translations  were  made.  The 
result  is  that  textual  science  can  make  use  of  some 
dozen  ancient  versions  which  are  superior,  or  but 
little  inferior,  in  point  of  age,  to  our  best  and  oldest 
Greek  MSS. 

Some  of  the  drawbacks  to  the  use  of  versions  in 
textual  criticism  have  been  mentioned  on  a  previous 
page :  the  greatest  difficulty  yet  remains.  Before 
the  testimony  of  a  version  can  be  confidently  alleged, 
its  own  text  must  be  settled^  and  we  must  be  careful 
lest  we  quote,  not  the  testimony  of  the  version  itself, 
but  that  of  some  scribe's  error  as  he  copied  one  of 
its  MSS.  It  is  a  fact,  however,  that  the  text  of 
none  of  the  early  versions  has  as  yet  been  satis- 
factorily restored ;  and  hence  the  use  of  versions 
hithei-to  in  textual  criticism  is  liable  to  as  much 
doubt  as  may  result  from  this  circumstance.  That 
this  is  not  as  fatal  to  all  successful  use  of  the  early 
versions  as  it  might  seem  at  first  sight,  will  be 
evident  when  we  consider  that  the  same  scribal 
errm-s  are  not  likely  to  occur  in  the  two  lines  of 
transmission — that,  namely,  of  the  Greek  MSS.  them- 
selves, and  that  of  MSS.  written,  say  for  example, 
in  Syriac.  Consequently  when  MSS.  and  versions 
are  used  together  they  may  correct,  to  a  measurable 
degree,  each  other's  errors.  Nevertheless,  the  versions 
were  liable,  throughout  their  whole  transmission,  not 
only  to  change  and  error  in  the  line  of  their  own 
development,  but  also  to  constant  correction  by  con- 
temporary Greek  MSS.  Often  successful  appeal  may 
bo  made  from  the  later  or  printed  text  of  the  ver- 
sioiiM  to   their  earlier  and  l»etter  ]\ISS. 


THE   MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  63 


It  is  only  a  partial  escape,  however,  that  we  can 
make  from  this  difficulty,  by  cpioting  the  various 
MSS.  of  a  version  in  the  criticism  of  the  Greek  text, 
as  it  has  become  the  custom  to  do  with  the  Latin 
versions.  So  far  as  these  MSS.  vary  from  one 
another  because  of  revision  by  the  Greek,  each  is, 
no  doubt,  a  witness  for  a  Greek  text ;  but  this  may 
be  a  Greek  text  of  the  date  of  the  MS.  itself,  or 
of  the  date  of  any  of  its  ancestors,  back  to  the 
very  origin  of  the  version.  The  MSS.  of  the  ver- 
sions ought  primarily  to  be  quoted  only  for  the 
texts  of  the  versions  themselves ;  and  only  when  their 
original  texts  have  been  reconstructed,  and  the  his- 
tory of  their  transmission  has  been  traced  out,  can 
their  readings  and  the  readings  of  the  various  MSS. 
which  profess  to  represent  them  be  adduced  witli 
perfect  confidence  in  the  criticism  of  the  Greek  text. 
That  the  history  of  the  versions  has  not  been  wrought 
out  fully  in  any  case,  and  that  a  really  critical  edition 
of  any  of  them  is  yet  to  frame,  are  circumstances 
which  are  not  indeed  fatal,  but  are  very  serious 
drawbacks  to  the  use  of  versions  in  criticism,  and 
little  less  than  an  open  disgrace  to  the  Biblical  science 
of  the  day. 

A  few  words  need  to  be  added  on  the  character 
and,  so  far  as  it  has  been  recovered,  the  history  of  the 
chief  versions. 

(1)  Two  Latin  versions  have  long  been  in  use  in 
criticism,  distinguished  by  the  names  of  the  "  Old 
Latin  "  (quite  commonly  but  improperly  called  filso 
the  "  Itala "),  and  the  "  Vulgate,"  for  wiiich 
Tischendorf  uses  the  abbreviations   "  It:"  and  "  Vg." 


64  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

These  versions  are  not,  however,  two  in  the  sense 
that  they  are  independent  of  each  other  :  the  Vulgate, 
so  called  because  it  has  long  been  the  Latin  version 
in  common  and  ecclesiastical  use,  was  rather  a  revision 
of  the  already  existing  Latin  version,  often  very 
slightly  altered,  and  was  made  by  the  great  Biblical 
scholar  Jerome  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  century. 
The  habit  of  distinguishing  sharply  between  the 
Vulgate  and  the  Old  Latin,  while  necessary  so  far, 
olDscures  the  fact  that  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  differs 
from  that  of  certain  of  the  MSS.  cited  under  the 
category  ''  Old  Latin  "  far  less  than  the  ''  Old  Latin  " 
MSS.  differ  among  themselves.  This  gi^eat  diversity 
among  the  Old  Latin  MSS.  has  necessitated  their 
detailed  quotation  in  the  digests  of  readings  for  the 
Greek  Testament,  and  may  be  observed  on  almost 
every  page  where  their  witness  is  borne  at  all.  The 
MSS.  of  the  Old  Latin  are  designated  in  the  digests 
by  the  small  letters  of  the  alphabet :  thus,  a  (Codex 
Vercellensis  of  the  fourth  century),  b  (Codex  Vero- 
nensis  of  the  fourth  or  fifth  century),  c  (Codex 
Colbertinus  of  the  eleventh  or  twelfth  century),  d  (the 
Latin  part  of  Codex  Bez8e,  D,  of  the  sixth  century), 
e  (Codex  Palatinus  of  the  fourth  or  fifth  century), 
and  the  like.  There  are  about  thirty-eight  separate 
codices  of  this  class  known,  of  which  some  twenty- 
four  belong  to  the  Gospels  (some  such  as  a2.n.o.p.r.s., 
containing  only  small  fragments),  seven  to  the  Acts, 
four  to  the  Catholic  Epistles,  nine  to  Paul,  and  three 
to  the  Apocalypse.  The  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate  are 
cited  by  short  abl)reviations  of  their  nnnies, —  thus, 
am  (Codex  Aniiatiiuis,  of  the  sixth  to  ninth  century). 


THE  MATTER   OF  CPdTICISM.  65 

fuld  or  fu  (Codex  Fuldensis,  of  the  sixth  century), 
tol  (Codex  Toletanns,  of  the  eighth  century),  for 
(Codex  Forojuliensis,  of  the  sixth  century),  harl 
(Codex  Harleianus  of  the  seventh  century),  etc. 

Under  such  circumstances,  the  tracing  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  Latin  versions  and  the  formation  of 
critical  texts  of  them  has  proved  so  diiiicult  as 
hitherto  to  be  impossible.  This  much  only  has  been 
certain.  A  Latin  version  existed  as  early  as  the 
second  century.  It  was  already  old  and  established 
in  the  use  of  the  people  when  TertuUian  wrote,  at  the 
end  of  the  second  century,  and  must,  therefore,  have 
been  made,  in  whole  or  part,  as  early  as  the  middle 
of  that  century.  The  complexion  of  this  early  ver- 
sion, current  in  North  Africa,  is  easily  observed  from 
the  quotations  from  it  made  by  TertuUian,  so  far  as 
his  quotations  from  the  Latin  can  be  disentangled 
from  those  that  he  took  directly  from  the  Greek,  and 
especially  from  the  quotations  made  from  it  by 
Cyprian,  who  appears  to  have  used  it  only.  The 
extant  MSS.  embodying  this  same  type  of  text  can 
safely  be  assigned  to  the  African  Old  Latin.  Whether 
this  African  New  Testament  lay  at  the  root  of  all 
the  Old  Latin  MSS.,  or  not,  has  been  a  disputed 
question.  On  the  one  hand  it  has  been  urged  that 
the  diversity  of  the  texts  is,  on  this  supposition, 
remarkable.  On  the  other,  that  their  manifold 
variety,  as  well  as  the  testimony  of  Jerome  and 
Augustine  alike  to  the  existence  in  their  day  of 
"  tot  exemplaria  pene  quot  codices,"  or  (as  Augustine 
phrases  it)  "Latinorum  interpretum  infinita  varietas," 
is  best  explained  by  the  great  licence  of  individual 


66  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM, 

correction  of  a  common  basis,  so  that  the  root  was 
one  though  the  branches  were  so  diverse.  In  this 
*'  interpretum  numerositas,"  Augustine  commends 
a  text  which  he  calls  the  "  Itala "  as  preferable  to 
the  others,  inasmuch  as  it  was  "  verborum  tenacior 
cum  perspicuitate  sententise " ;  and  this  name  has 
hence  been  applied  to  the  Old  Latin  as  a  whole 
(against  the  example  of  Augustine,  who  so  names  a 
specified  type  of  the  Old  Latin),  or  else  to  some 
special  form  of  it,  more  frequently  of  late  to  what 
appears  a  revision  that  was  current,  chiefly  in  North 
Italy,  in  the  fourth  century.  It  was  under  the 
spur  of  this  confusion  of  texts  that  Jerome  (about 
383)  undertook  his  revision,  which  won  its  way  at 
length  into  the  position  of  a  vulgate  about  the  end 
of  the  sixth  century. 

More  recent  investigations  have  shed  new  light 
on  several  dark  points  in  this  history,  and  we  are 
now  able  to  trace,  at  least  tentatively,  the  outlines 
of  the  development  of  the  Latin  versions  in  such  a 
way  as  to  give  the  testimony  of  its  different  MSS. 
a  more  defined  place  in  textual  criticism.  It  is  still 
uncertain  whether  one  or  two  parent  stocks  lie  at  the 
base  of  the  Old  Latin  MSS.,  but  the  Old  Latin  testi- 
mony is  very  distinctly  that  of  two  strongly  marked 
types.  Their  divergence  has  been  obscured  by  the 
immense  amount  of  mixture  that  has  taken  place 
between  the  two  as  represented  even  in  the  earliest 
codices,  as  well  as  by  the  great  licence  of  individual 
alteration  which  has  affected  all  lines  of  descent. 
These  two  versions  may  be  called  the  African  and  the 
European.     The  foimer  is  represented  by  the  fifth- 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM,  67 

century  Codex  Bobiensis  (k),  at  a  later  stage  of 
development  by  the  beautiful  fourth  or  fifth  century 
Codex  Paiatinus  (e),  and  at  a  still  later  stage  by 
the  Speculum  Augustini  (m),  in  the  Gospels.  To  it 
also  belong  the  palimpsest  fragments  of  the  Acts  and 
Apocalypse  cited  as  h,  and  of  course  the  quotations 
of  Tertullian  (when  not  taken  from  the  Greek), 
Cyprian,  as  well  as  Optatus,  and  (for  the  Apocalypse) 
Primasius.  The  European  is  represented  by  the 
great  mass  of  the  codices,  the  oldest  of  which  are 
a,  b,  d,  f.  The  African  text  is  as  old  as  the  second 
century ;  the  age  of  the  European  is  less  certain, 
but  some  of  its  MSS.  belong  to  the  fourth  century, 
and  the  version  itself  must  be  as  old  as  the  opening 
of  the  fourth  century  or  end  of  the  third  at  the 
latest.  There  is  good  evidence  to  show  that  the 
European  Latin  was  made  the  object  of  various 
revisions  during  the  course  of  the  fourth  century, 
the  final  product  of  which  may  be  called  the  Italian 
Latin  all  the  more  appropriately  that  it  seems  to 
be  this  text  that  was  preferred  by  Augustine,  if  we 
may  judge  from  the  quotations  in  many  of  his  works. 
To  the  unrevised  European  Latin  may  be  assigned, 
in  the  Gospels,  Codices  a,  b,  c,  fi",  h,  i,  r,  and  some  other 
fragmentary  or  mixed  texts,  and  in  the  Acts  g.  To 
the  Italian  revision  belong  f,  q,  in  the  Gospels,  r,  rg,  v^ 
in  Paul,  q  in  the  Catholic  Epistles,  and  perhaps  g  in 
the  Apocalypse.  Jerome's  further  revision  seems  to  be 
based  on  the  Italian  revision,  and  in  the  Gospels  on 
a  text  very  closely  related  to  that  of  Codex  f ,  which,  in 
parts  at  least,  received  only  a  very  surface  re^asion. 
Instead  of  two  Latin  versions,  we  thus  appear  to 


68  TEXTUAL   CIUTICISM. 

have  the  testimony  of  no  less  than  thi'ee  or  four 
to  take  account  of  in  textual  criticism :  one  of  the 
second  century — -the  African  ;  one  of  the  end  of  the 
third  or  beginning  of  the  fourth — the  European ;  a 
somewhat  later  revision  of  the  European — the  Italian  ', 
and  finally,  the  revision  of  the  Italian  which  Jerome 
carried  through  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  century — the 
Vulgate. 

By  attending  to  the  distribution  of  the  codices 
among  the  various  forms  of  the  Old  Latin,  as  indi- 
cated above,  some  light  is  thrown  on  the  testimony 
as  drawn  out  in  detail  in  our  digests.  We  can,  not 
infrequently,  separate  already  the  testimony  of  the 
several  forms,  and  allow  weight  to  the  groups  accord- 
ingly. A  critical  edition  of  even  the  Vulgate  is^ 
however,  still  a  desideratum.  The  revision  of  the 
current  texts  undertaken  by  Alcuin  in  the  eighth 
century,  and  that  ordered  by  the  Council  of  Trent, 
had  this  as  their  object.  But  the  work  has  been 
badly  done,  and  the  Clementine  Vulgate  of  1592  is 
anything  but  a  critical  text. 

(2)  The  early  history  of  the  Syriac  versions  is  even 
more  obscure  than  that  of  the  Latin,  but  from  a 
different  cause.  Here  we  have  an  almost  entire  lack 
of  material.  The  Peshitto  version  (or  as  its  name 
imports,  the  ''simple"  version)  well  deserves  the 
title  of  the  Syriac  vulgate,  since  it  was  the  common 
translation  in  use  among  all  the  Syrian  sects  through- 
OTit  the  whole  of  the  flourishing  epoch  of  Syrian 
history,  and  continues  to-day  the  ecclesiastical  version 
of  their  heirs.  So  admirably  has  its  text  been 
guarded,  that  it   remains   substantially   the  same  in 


THE   MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  69 

the  later  MSS.  as  it  stands  in  the  oldest  MS.  of  the 
Peshitto  that  has  survived  to  our  time  (the  Codex 
Additionalis  14459  of  the  British  Museum,  fifth 
century),  or  even  as  it  is  extracted  in  the  quotations 
of  Ephrem  of  the  fourth  century.  This  venerable 
and  most  admirable  version  bears,  however,  traces  of 
having  received  the  form  which  it  has  so  long  preserved 
with  such  well- justified  tenacity  through  a  revision 
which  may  be  dated  at  some  time  between  a.d.  250 
and  350.  Accordingly,  the  considerable  fragments  of 
a  version  of  the  Gospels  which  were  recovered  by 
Dr.  Cureton  from  one  of  the  MSS.  brought  by 
Archdeacon  Tattam  from  the  Nitrian  desert  in  1842, 
have  been  recognised  by  most  scholars  to  contain  an 
older  form  of  the  Peshitto.  The  venerable  codex, 
written  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  which 
contains  these  fragments  is  now  in  the  British 
Museum,  while  the  version  itself  which  it  contains 
is  clearly  not  independent  of  the  Peshitto,  and  almost 
equally  clearly  older  than  it,  and  is  assigned  by  most 
scholai's  to  the  second  century.  Its  great  age  has 
been  oddly  confirmed  by  the  discovery  of  Titian's 
"  Diatessaron  "  (a  Gospel-harmony  of  the  second  cen- 
tury), which  is  found  to  be  based  on  this  version. 
How  much  of  the  New  Testament  was  included  in 
this  oldest  Syriac  (which  is  appropriately  called  from 
its  discoverer,  the  "  Curetonian  Syriac")  cannot  be 
confidently  determined.  Fragments  of  the  Gospels 
only  have  as  yet  come  to  light.  The  Peshitto,  if  we 
confine  this  name  to  the  form  the  version  took  after 
its  late  third  or  early  fourth  century  revision,  has 
never  contained    the   four   smaller  Catholic  Epistles 


70  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM. 

(2  Peter,  2  and  3  John,  and  Jude)  or  the  Apocalypse, 
it  is  uncertain  whether  by  inheritance  or  as  a  result 
of  a  revision  of  the  canon  contemporary  with  the 
revision  of  the  text. 

A  somewhat  different  reading  of  the  earliest  stages 
of  the  hi.story  of  the  Syriac  versions  has  been  lately 
commended  to  scholars  by  the  very  careful  studies  of 
Baethgen.  The  dependence  of  the  Peshitto  on  the 
Curetonian  may  be  said  to  be  demonstrated  by  him ; 
but  he  supposes  the  Curetonian  to  be  based  upon 
Tatian  instead  of  the  source  from  which  he  drew, 
and  assigns  it  to  about  a.d.  250,  while  the  Peshitto 
revision  is  dated  by  him  about  the  middle  of  the 
fourth  century.  We  venture  to  leave  the  question 
of  the  relation  of  the  Curetonian  to  Tatian  undecided, 
as  not  of  essential  importance  for  our  present  purpose. 

Another  Syriac  version,  not  altogether  independent 
of  the  Peshitto,  was  made  in  the  early  sixth  century 
(a.d.  508)  by  the  Chorepiscopus  Polycarp,  under  the 
patronage  of  Philoxenus,  Bishop  of  Mabug  or 
Hierapolis.  This  version  has  left  very  few  traces  of 
itself  in  its  original  form,  though  the  Gospels  of  it 
may  have  been  recently  recovered  in  a  MS.  brought 
to  notice  by  Prof.  Isaac  H.  Hall,  and  the  property 
of  the  Beirut  Syrian  Protestant  College.  It  was 
subjected  to  a  thorough  revision  by  Thomas  of  Harkel 
in  616,  who  added  to  its  margin  readings  from 
several  Greek  MSS.  belonging  to  an  Alexandrian 
library,  and  which  prove  to  be  valuable.  In  this 
form  it  has  come  down  to  us  in  numerous  MSS. 
It  contains  all  the  New  Testament  except  the 
Apocalypse,  and  as  its  characteristic  feature   is   ex- 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  71 

cessive  literality,  it  is  everywhere  useful  as  a  witness 
to  its  underlying  Greek  text.  It  goes  without  saying 
that  its  margin  presents  additional  evidence,  and  is  to 
be  taken  account  of  as  fully  as  the  text  itself. 

Yet  another  Syriac  version,  and  one  which  may 
be  independent  of  the  Peshitto,  has  been  partially 
preserved  for  us — chiefly  in  some  lesson-books.  It 
is  assigned  by  Tischendorf  to  the  fifth  century.  Its 
dialect  is  very  peculiar ;  and  as  it  has  been  supposed 
to  represent  a  region  lying  contiguous  to  Palestine, 
the  name  of  Jerusalem  Syriac  has  been  given  to  the 
version.  Besides  the  lessons  from  the  Gospels,  only  a 
few  verses  from  the  Acts  are  known. 

The  Syrian  versions  thus  include :  one  from  the 
second  century — the  Curetonian;  a  revision  of  this 
from  the  late  third  or  early  fourth  century — the 
Peshitto ;  one  from  the  opening  of  the  sixth  century, 
with  its  revision  early  in  the  seventh — the  Philoxeno- 
Harclean ;  and  one  which  is  doubtingly  assigned  to 
the  fifth  century — the  Jerusalem.  In  Tischendorf's 
digests  these  versions  are  cited  as  follows :  syr^*^  = 
the  Curetonian ;  syr^''  =  the  Jerusalem ;  syr**^^  =  the 
Peshitto  according  to  Schaaf s  edition ;  syrP  =  the 
Harclean  according  to  the  edition  of  White;  syr^^*^ 
=  both  of  these  last  two.  Other  critics  make  use  of 
other  abbreviations  which  will  be  found  explained  in 
their  editions. 

(3)  From  the  early  Egyptian  Church  two  inde- 
pendent versions  have  come  down  to  us,  both  of  which 
appear  to  have  been  made,  in  part  at  least,  in  the 
second  century,  and  both  of  which  contained  the 
whole  New  Testament,  although  treating  the  Apoca- 


72  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

l3^pse  as  a  sort  of  appendix  to  the  volume.  This 
last  circumstance  may  hint  to  us  the  time  when  these 
versions  were  finished — i.e.,  in  the  middle  of  the 
third  century,  when  the  Apocalypse  was  brought  into 
dispute  in  Egypt,  as  w^e  learn  from  Dionysius ;  or  it 
may  be  the  result  of  speculation  taking  effect  upon 
an  already  completed  version.  Of  these  two  versions, 
that  which  w^as  made  for  use  in  Lower  Egypt  appears 
more  faithfully  to  follow  the  details  of  the  Greek, 
and  may  be  a  few  years  the  older;  it  is  called, 
variously,  the  Memphitic,  the  Bahiric,  or,  confusingly 
appropriating  the  name  that  is  broad  enough  to 
embrace  both  versions,  the  Coptic.  Tischendorf  cites 
it  by  the  abbreviation  "  cop."  The  version  that  was 
current  in  Upper  Egypt  is  know^n  as  the  Thebaic  or 
Sahidic  (cited  by  Tischendorf  by  the  abbreviation 
"  sah."),  and  is  perhaps  more  faithful  to  Egyptian 
idiom  than  its  sister ;  only  fragments  of  it  have  been 
as  yet  recovered.  Some  of  the  lacunae  in  the  Thebaic 
version  may  be  supplied  by  using  a  third  Coptic 
version,  about  330  verses  of  which  from  John  and 
Paul  are  known,  and  which  is  not  taken  directly 
from  the  Greek,  but  is  an  adaptation  of  the  Thebaic 
to  another  dialect,  from  which  the  version  itself  is 
known  as  the  Bashmuric  or  Fayumic  (cited  by 
Tischendorf  by  the  abbreviation  "  bash."). 

(4)  The  early  history  of  the  Abyssinian  Church 
is  very  obscure ;  but  its  version,  the  Ethiopic,  was 
certainly  made  dii-ectly  from  the  Greek,  and  dates 
pi-obably  from  the  fourth  century,  although  its  earliest 
extant  MSS.  appear  to  be  as  late  as  the  fifteenth 
century.     Tliis  version    is    smooth  and  flowing,   and 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  73 

yet  faithful,  and  contains  the  whole  New  Testament. 
From  the  same  age  with  the  Ethiopia  comes  the 
Gothic  version,  made  in  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century  by  the  great  apostle  of  the  Goths,  Ulfilas. 
We  possess  the  Gospels  and  Paul's  Epistles  (except 
Hebrews)  with  lacunae,  in  codices  that  carry  us  back 
as  far  as  the  sixth  century.  The  Armenian  version, 
which  contains  the  whole  New  Testament,  was  trans- 
lated from  the  Greek  about  a.d.  433,  under  the 
patronage  of  Sahak,  the  patriarch,  and  apparently, 
in  part  at  least,  by  the  hand  of  Miesrob,  the  inventor 
of  the  Armenian  alphabet.  The  printed  editions  are 
good,  but  not  critically  satisfactory,  and  it  is  necessary 
frequently  to  appeal  from  them  to  the  MSS.  To 
these  the  Slavonic  version,  made  in  the  ninth  century, 
may  perhaps  be  added. 

If  we  arrange  this  list  of  versions  according  to  age, 
we  obtain  the  following  series  of  versions  w^hich  may 
be  used  in  textual  criticism  of  the  Greek  text : — 

Versions  of  the  early  or  middle  second  century,  two, 
— the  African  Latin  and  the  Curetonian  Syriac. 

Versions  of  the  end  of  the  second  century,  two, — the 
Memphitic  and  Thebaic. 

Versions  of  the  late  third  or  early  fourth  century, 
two, — the  Peshitto  Syriac  and  European  Latin. 

Versions  of  the  middle  or  late  fourth  century,  four, 
— the  Gothic,  the  Italian  Latin,  the  Vulgate  Latin, 
and  the  Ethiopic. 

Versions  of  the  fifth  century,  two, — the  Armenian 
and  the  Jerusalem  Syriac. 

Versions  of  the  sixth  century,  one, — the  Philoxenian 
Syriac. 


74  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

Versions  of  the  seventh  century,  one, — the  Harclean 
Syiiac. 

Versions  of  the  ninth  century,  one, — the  Slavonic. 

3.  Early  Quotations  from  the  New  Testament. 

The  copiousness  of  the  material  to  be  derived  from 
the  quotations  of  early  writers  is  liable  to  both  over- 
and  under-estimation.  The  whole  tone  of  the  writing 
of  the  early  Christian  authors  is  Scriptural ;  but  it  is 
none  the  less  often  very  difficult  to  make  use  of  their 
allusions  in  the  criticism  of  the  text.  Many  verses, 
and  some  of  these  such  as  present  important  critical 
problems,  are  scarcely  quoted  at  all  by  them.  Others 
are  frequently  quoted,  and  in  an  immense  variety  of 
forms.  Probably  nearly  the  w^hole  teaching  of  the 
New  Testament,  in  one  form  or  another,  could  be 
recovered  from  the  writings  of  the  fathers ;  but  this 
would  be  too  much  to  say  of  its  text.  In  addition  to 
the  obvious  hindrances  to  their  use  in  textual  criticism 
which  have  been  already  pointed  out,  two  require  to 
have  especial  emphasis  laid  upon  them  :  the  looseness 
with  which  the  fathers  usually  quote,  and  the  evil 
fortune  which  has  attended  the  transmission  of  their 
works  to  our  own  day. 

A  physical  cause  lies  at  the  bottom  of  much  of  the 
looseness  of  patristic  quotation.  Thei-e  were  no  handy 
reference  Bibles  in  those  days,  no  concordances,  no 
indices;  and  books  were  dear,  and  not  at  all  times 
within  reach.  For  brief  quotations  memory  was 
necessaiily  relied  on  ;  and  thus  the  habit  of  depending 
on  memory  fixed  itself.  Even  very  long  quotations 
can   often  be  but  little  trusted  in  their  details,  and 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  75 

in  general  it  is  unsafe  to  draw  from  a  father  a 
reading  which  is  not  supported  by  some  MS.  or  ver- 
sion, except  in  those  comparatively  rare  cases  in  which 
he  tells  us  that  such  or  such  a  reading  actually  stood 
in  codices  within  his  knowledge.  And  at  the  very  best, 
it  must  be  carefully  borne  in  mind,  that  when  the 
reading  of  a  father  has  been  settled,  and  it  is  deter- 
mined that  he  has  actually  drawn  it  from  a  Greek 
MS.,  its  value  is  no  more  than  it  was  as  it  stood  in 
the  MS.  No  matter  how  strongly  a  father  asserts  it 
to  be  the  true  reading,  or  the  reading  of  the  best  and 
oldest  MSS.,  it  is  after  all  but  a  MS,  reading — of  one 
or  more  codices  according  to  the  evidence  in  hand, 
and  the  value  of  the  further  assertions  of  the  father 
will  depend  on  our  estimate  of  his  ability  and  oppor- 
tunities to  form  a  critical  opinion. 

Time  has  dealt  very  sorely  with  patristic  writings 
in  general,  and  with  the  citations  from  Scripture 
contained  in  them  in  particular.  Scribes  and  editors 
have  vied  with  one  another  in  conforming  their  quo- 
tations to  the  texts  current  in  later  times,  and  not 
infrequently  the  text  that  actually  stands  written 
is  in  conflict  with  the  use  made  of  it  in  the  context. 
Above  all  other  evidence,  the  evidence  of  the  fathers 
needs  sifting  and  critical  reconstruction  before  it  can 
be  confidently  used.  Let  us  add  that  the  remains  of 
the  earliest  fathers  that  survive  to  our  day  are  the 
merest  fragments  of  the  literature  of  their  age,  and 
in  some  very  important  instances  have  reached  us 
only  in  Latin  or  Syriac  translations  of  their  original 
Greek.  In  this  last  case  a  new  problem  faces  the 
critic  :     Has   the    translator  rendered    the  Scrip turnl 


76  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

quotations  that  stood  before  him  in  the  text,  or  re- 
quoted  them  from  his  own  version  ?  In  the  former 
case  the  value  of  the  quotations  ranks  with  that  of 
versions  of  the  New  Testament ;  in  the  latter  they 
are  primarily  witnesses  to  a  version,  and  only  second- 
arily, through  that  version  to  the  testimony  of  w^hich 
they  add  nothing,  witnesses  to  the  Greek  text.  Yet, 
which  process  the  translator  has  followed  can  be 
settled  in  each  individual  instance  only  by  a  critical 
inquiry.  In  general  it  is  a  safe  rule  to  suspect  all 
quotations  in  a  translation  from  a  Greek  father 
which  conform  to  the  national  version  of  the  trans- 
lator. 

Of  course,  Greek  fathers  alone  are  direct  witnesses 
to  the  Greek  text.  To  these  are  to  be  added  those 
Latin  and  Syriac  writers  who  can  be  proved  to  have 
made  use  of  the  Greek  text.  So  far  as  their  quota- 
tions from  the  Greek  can  be  sifted  out  from  their 
quotations  from  their  own  versions,  these  are  testi- 
monies that  will  rank  independently  alongside  of 
versions,  while  the  rest  will  be  testimonies  only  to 
the  versions  used  by  them,  and  thiough  them  in- 
directly to  the  Greek.  The  quotations  of  Latin  and 
Syriac  fathers  in  general  are,  of  course,  of  this  latter 
sort.  Ante-Nicene  Greek  i-emains  are  not  very  copious. 
Only  for  the  seventy-five  years  embraced  between 
A.D.  175  and  250,  when  we  have  Irenasus,  Hippolytus, 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  especially  Origen,  are  we 
supplied  with  any  abundance  of  testimony.  Methodius 
later  in  the  third  century,  and  Eusebius  early  in  the 
fourth,  furnish  very  valuable  material ;  while  Cyril  of 
Alexandria  is  the  most  noteworthy  wi-iter  for  critical 


THE   MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  77 

use  that  the  fifth  century  gives  us.  The  commentaries 
of  the  early  Church  may  justly  be  expected  to  afford 
very  important  material,  but  unfortunately  the  com- 
mentaries that  have  been  preserved  from  the  first 
four  hundred  years  of  early  Christianity  are  not 
numerous.  We  have  Origen's  commentaries :  on  a 
good  part  of  Matthew  partly  in  the  Greek  and  partly 
only  in  a  condensed  Latin  translation;  on  a  small 
portion  of  Luke  in  Latin ;  on  much  of  John  in  the 
Greek ;  on  Romans  in  Latin ;  and  on  some  parts  of 
1  Corinthians,  Ephesians,  and  some  other  books. 
Then  we  have  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia's  commentaries 
on  the  lesser  Epistles  of  Paul  in  a  Latin  translation, 
and  Chrysostom's  homilies  on  Matthew,  John,  Acts, 
and  Paul  in  the  Greek.  The  next  century  gives  us 
Theodoret  on  Paul,  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria  on  the 
Gospels  and  Paul.  And  numerous  fragments  from 
several  authors  are  preserved  in  Catence.  The  value 
of  such  Latin  commentaries  as  that  of  Primasius 
on  the  Apocalypse,  or  such  Syriac  ones  as  that  of 
Ephrem  on  the  Gospels,  is  wholly  with  reference  to 
the  respective  versions  on  which  they  are  based; 
from  the  former  nearly  the  whole  of  the  African 
Apocalypse  has  been  recovered,  and  from  the  latter 
a  considerable  knowledge  of  Tatian's  "  Diatessaron." 

The  number  of  ecclesiastical  writers  that  are  cata- 
logued for  critical  purposes  considerably  exceeds  one 
hundred.  From  all  of  these  occasional  citations  are 
drawn,  but  very  few  of  them  have  been  thoroughly 
put  under  contribution  to  critical  science.  Griesbach 
pretty  thoroughly  explored  the  pages  of  Origen,  and 
Tregelles  did  much  for  Eusebius,  and  Dean  Burgon 


78 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 


has  enlarged  our  knowledge  of  patristic  citations  in 
many  directions.  But  much  yet  remains  to  bo  done, 
both  in  extracting  their  readings  from  the  writings 
of  the  fathers  and  in  testing  the  readings  that  now 
stand  in  the  editions  or  MSS.  by  the  context,  before 
we  can  flatter  ourselves  that  the  work  is  much  more 
than  well  begun.  The  fathers  are  cited  by  abbre- 
viations of  their  names,  and  the  Latin  and  Greek 
evidence  is  very  much  jumbled  together  in  the  digests. 
The  following  brief  list  of  the  names  that  are  best 
worth  our  attention  in  the  digests  is  borrowed  from 
Dr.  Westcott.  The  more  important  fathers  are 
marked  by  small  capitals ;  Latin  fathers  by  italics  : — 


Justinus  M.,  c.  103—168. 
IREN^US,  c.  120—190. 
Irenmi  Interiiretes  [c.   180? 

or  300  ?]. 
Tebtullianus  (Marcion),  c. 

160—240. 
Clemens  Alex.,  +  c.  220. 
Origenes,  186—253. 
Hippolytus. 
Cypbrianus,  -i-  247. 
Dionysius  Alex.,  4-265. 
Petrus  Alex.,  4-313. 
Methodius,  4-c.  811. 
EUSEBIUS       C^SAE.,     26-1 — 

340. 
Athanasius,  296 — 373. 
Cyrillus  Hierosol.,  315—386. 
Lucifer,  4«370. 
Ephraem    Syrus    [Tatianus], 

+  378. 
Basilius  Magnus,  329— 379. 
IIlERONYMUS,  340—420. 


Amhrosms,  340 — 397. 
Ambrosiaster,  c.  360. 
Victorlnus.  c.  360. 
Chrysostomus,  347—407. 
DiDYMUS,  4-  396. 
Epiphanius,  4*  402. 
Rnfinus,  c.  345—410. 
AuGUSTiJsrus,  354 — 430. 
Theodorus  Mops.,  4-429. 
Cyrillus  Alex.,  4-444. 
Ililarius,  4-  449. 
Theodoretus,  893—458. 
Euthalius,  c.  450. 
Cassiodorvs,  c.  468 — 566. 
Victor  Antiochcnus. 
Theophylactas  [c.  1077]. 
Andreas  (Apoc. ),  c.  635— 700. 
Prim  asms  (Apoc.)  [c.  550]. 
Johannes    Damasccnus,  +  c. 

756. 
Q£cumenius,  e.  950. 
Euthymius,  c.  1100. 


THE  MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  79 

The  student  is  now  in  a  position  to  understand 
better  than  formerly  the  notes  which  we  quoted  from 
Tischendorf's  digest.  Let  us  take  another  example, 
however,  and  ask :  Shall  we  read  in  John  vii.  8,  "  I 
go  not  up  to  this  feast,"  or  "  I  go  not  yet  up  to  this 
feast "?     Tischendorf  states  the  evidence  thus  : — 

ovK  cum  i<DKMn  17*^:=  389  p^'^^'  abceffs-p. 
vg  cop    syr^^^  arm  seth.     Porph  ap  Hier^'*''  y9M:Av^ 

Epiph«^  Chr8-328  Cyr^wi 9  (=  Gb  Sz)  Ln 

ovTTO)  cum  B  L  T  X  r  A  A  unc'^  al  pier  f  g  q  vg'^*^^ 
-'^"^  (ap.  Ln)  go  sah  syr^'^^  etP  (et^^s  e^'^'^)  et^^^' 
(Syriace  iiunc  noii)  Bas  -^^^^  ^®^. 

A  glance  enables  the  reader  to  perceive  that  "  not " 
is  read  by  the  uncial  copies  k,  D,  K,  M,  II  ;  by  the 
minuscules  17'^='^^  389,  p'^"';  by  the  Old  Latin  copies 
a,  b,  c,  e,  fF  2-j  P^  which  include  both  those  of  the 
African  and  those  of  the  European  type;  by  the  Vulgate 
Latin,  the  Coptic  {i.e.  the  Memphitic),  the  Curetonian 
Syriac,  the  Armenian,  and  the  Ethiopic  versions; 
and  by  Porphyry  as  cited  by  Jerome,  Epiphanius, 
Chrysostom,  and  Cyril,  at  the  places  in  their  works 
indicated  by  the  small  numerals.  On  the  other  side, 
ovTTO)  is  read  by  the  editions  included  under  the  symbol 
<; — i.e.,  by  Stephens  and  Elzevir,  but  not  by  Griesbach 
and  Scholz  (for  that  is  the  meaning  of  "  =  Gb. 
Sz."),  and  also  by  Lachmann  in  accordance  with  the 
testimony  of  the  uncial  copies  B,  L,  T,  X,  V,  A,  A, 
and  seven  others;  of  most  other  {i.e.  minuscule) 
MSS. ;  of  the  Old  Latin  codices  f,  g,  q  {i.e.  the 
Italian  Latin) ;  of  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate  Latin  cited 
by  Lachmann  ;  of  the  Gothic  and  Sahidic  (=  Thebaic) 


80  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

versions ;  of  Schaaf 's  edition  of  the  Syriac  (Pesliitto), 
White's  edition  of  the  Syriac  (Harclean),  as  well  in 
the  Greek  margin  as  in  the  text,  and  the  Jerusalem 
Syriac;  and  of  Basil  at  the  place  indicated  by  the 
numerals. 

The  student  may  not  yet  be  in  position  to  decide 
between  the  readings  with  any  confidence ;  but  he  can, 
at  least,  understand  now  the  testimony.  He  can  do 
more :  he  can  classify  it  at  a  glance  into  its  various 
sorts, — uncials,  minuscules,  versions,  fathers.  And 
he  can  even  analyse  it  according  to  age,  thus : — 

For  ovK  there  are — 

Uncial  MSS.  of  the  fourth  century,  one  :  j<. 
„  „  „       sixth  century,  one :  D. 

,,  ,,  ,,       ninth  century,  three :  K,  M,  T. 

Minuscule  MSS.,  three  :  17**,  389,  p^'''-. 
Versions   of    the   second   century,   two    (three) : 
Memph.,   Syr^^  (Afr.  Lat.). 
,,  ,,  „     fourth  century,  three :  Europ. 

Lat.,  Yg.,  ^th. 
,,         „         „     fifth  century,  one  :  Arm. 
Fathers  of  the  late  third  century,  one  :  Porphyry. 
,,  ,,  fourth  century,  two  :  Epiphanius, 

Chrysostom. 
„  „         fifth  century,  one  :  Cyril  of  Alex- 

andria. 
For  ovTTco  there  are  :  — 

Uncial  MSS.  of  the  fourth  century,  one :  B. 
,,  „         „        fifth  century,  one :  T. 

,,         ,,         ,,        eighth     century,     two  :     L 
(and  E). 


THE   MATTER   OF  CRITICISM.  81 

Uncial  MSS.  of  the  ninth  century,  six  :  X,  T,  A,L 
(and  F,  V). 
,,  „  ,,      (tenth  century,  four  :  G,  H, 

S,  U). 
Minuscule  MSS.,  almost  all. 
Versions  of  the  second  century,  one  :  Thebaic. 
„  „  fourth  century,    four  :     It.  Lat., 

Ygcod.  aiiq.^  (^Q^^  Syr^'^^. 

„  „         fifth    century,    one :    Jerusalem 

Syria  c. 
„         ,,         seventh  century,  one  :  Syi.i'  et'"^ 

griec^ 

Fathers  of  the  fourth  century,  one  :  Basil. 

Such  an  analysis  carries  us  an  appreciable  distance 
towards  a  decision  as  to  the  relative  value  of  the 
support  given  to  each  reading.  Yet  it  falls  short  of 
a  decision.  If  numbers  of  witnesses  are  to  rule,  ''  not 
yet"  must  receive  the  palm;  if  age  is  to  rule,  the 
division  is  pretty  even  between  the  two ;  if  weight 
and  value  of  the  witnessevS  is  to  rule, — the  student 
is  not  yet  in  position  to  have  an  opinion.  Whence 
we  may  learn  that  it  behoves  us  next  to  turn  from 
the  matter  of  criticism  to  its  methods — that  is,  to  put 
this  query  to  ourselves  :  "  How  are  we  to  proceed  in 
order  to  reach  a  really  grounded  decision  as  to  the 
weight  of  evidence  for  each  of  these  two  readings  T' 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM^ 

IT  has  been  already  pointed  ont  that  there  are  but 
two  kinds  of  evidence  to  which  we  can  appeal  in 
prosecuting  the  work  of  criticising  a  text, — external 
and  internal  evidence.  All  methods  of  criticism  are, 
therefore,  but  various  ways  of  using  these  kinds  of 
evidence  ;  and  when  we  undertake  to  investigate  the 
methods  of  criticism,  we  simply  inquire  how  we  are 
to  proceed  in  order  to  reach  firm  conclusions  as  to 
the  text  by  means  of  internal  and  external  evidence. 
We  have  been  busied  thus  far  in  merely  gathering 
the  external  testimony,  and  the  reader  is  doubtless  in 
a  position  to  appreciate  how  little  the  mei-e  collection 
of  the  testimony  has  advanced  us  in  deciding  on  the 
text.  It  is  our  business  now  to  consider  how  we 
may  attain  a  grounded  decision  as  to  the  true  text. 

1.  Internal  Evidence  of  Readings. 

The  most  rudimentary  method  of  dealing  with 
the  variations  that  emei-ge  in  the  collection  of  the 
external  testimony  would  be  to  use  the  external 
evidence  only  to  advertise  to  us  the  fact  of  variation 
and  to  furnish  us  with  the  readings  between  which 
choice  is  to  be  made,  and  then  to  settle  the  claiuis 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.         83 

of  the  rival  readings  on  internal  grounds.  Most 
crudely  performed,  this  would  be  to  select,  out  of 
the  readings  actually  transmitted,  that  one  which 
seemed  to  us  to  make  the  best  sense  in  the  connection, 
or  to  account  most  easily  for  the  origin  of  the  others. 
It  requires  no  argument  to  point  out  the  illegitimacy 
of  thus  setting  aside  the  external  evidence  unheard ; 
or  the  danger  of  thus  staking  everything  upon  our 
insight  into  the  exact  intention  of  the  author  or 
the  springs  of  action  that  moved  men  through  a 
millennium  and  a  half  of  copying,  if  this  insight  be 
exercised  extemporaneously,  as  it  were,  and  without 
a  very  severe  previous  study  of  the  authors  and  their 
times  and  the  scribes  and  their  habits.  Nevertheless, 
though  all  may  not  be  lightly  ventured  upon  its 
untrained  dictum,  internal  evidence  of  readings,  when 
carefully  investigated,  constitutes  a  most  valuable 
method  of  criticism,  the  aid  of  which  we  cannot 
dispense  with.  It  will  repay  us,  therefore,  to  consider 
its  methods  of  procedure  in  some  detail. 

As  has  been  already  intimated,  ^'  internal  evidence 
of  readings"  includes  two  separate  and  independent 
processes.  In  interrogating  any  reading  as  to  the 
evidence  that  it  bears  to  its  own  originality,  we  may 
make  our  inquiries  with  reference  to  the  author,  or 
with  reference  to  the  scribes  who  have  transmitted 
what  he  wrote;  and  we  may  make  them  in  either 
case  absolutely,  or  relatively  to  other  transmitted 
readings.  We  may  ask,  absolutely.  What  is  the  pro- 
bability that  this  is  the  reading  that  the  author 
would  have  placed  just  here  'I  or,  relatively,  What 
probability  commends  this  reading,  above  any  of  the 


84  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

others  that  have  come  down  to  us,  as  the  reading 
which  the  author  wrote  here?  Or  we  may  ask  w^hat 
is  the  probability  that  this  is  the  reading  which  the 
scribes  began  with,  either  absolutely — i.e.,  in  the 
form.  Does  this  reading  suggest  an  earlier  one,  out 
of  which  it  was  made  by  the  scribes?  or  relatively 
to  the  other  transmitted  readings — that  is,  in  the 
form.  What  is  the  probability  that  the  other  read- 
ings have  grown  out  of  this  one?  When  dealing 
absolutely  with  each  reading,  we  are  seeking  directly 
the  autographic  text.  When  dealing  relatively  with 
each,  we  are  seeking  in  the  first  instance  only  the 
earliest  transmitted  text,  and  leaving  it  to  a  further 
inquiry  to  determine  whether  or  not  this  is  the 
autographic  text.  In  either  case  we  are  making  use 
of  two  separate  methods  of  inquiry ;  one  of  which 
deals  wdth  the  probability  that  the  author  wrote  this 
reading,  and  the  other  with  the  probability  that  the 
scribes  began  with  it.  The  one  is  appropriately 
called  Intrinsic  Evidence,  and  the  other  Transcrip- 
tional Evidence, 

Intrinsic  Evidence. 

By  intrinsic  evidence  is  meant  the  testimony 
which  each  reading  delivers,  by  its  very  nature,  to  its 
fitness  to  stand  in  the  text.  It  is  elicited  by  actually 
trying  the  reading  in  question  in  the  passage  and 
testing  its  appropriateness  by  the  contextual  argu- 
ment, the  rhetorical  flow  of  the  language,  the  knov\-n 
style  and  habits  of  speech  and  thought  of  the  author, 
and  the  general  language  and  thought-circle  of  the 
times    and    society  in    which    he    lived.     The  danger 


THE  METHODS   OF  CRITICISM.         85 

that  attendri  the  use  of  the  method  grows  out  of  our 
tendency  to  read  our  own  standpoint  into  our  author, 
instead  of  reading  ourselves  back  into  his.  It  is 
easy  to  become  an  improver  instead  of  remaining  a 
simple  editor;  and  it  is  often  veiy  difficult  not  to 
make  an  author  speak  our  thoughts,  if  not  even  our 
language.  It  cannot,  however,  be  too  strongly  in- 
sisted upon  that  any  attempt  to  estimate  intrinsic 
probabilities  by  the  rule  of  what  appears  to  us  to 
be  the  best  reading  is  simply  an  attempt  to  corrupt 
the  text  and  train  it  to  festoon  the  trellises  of  our 
own  desires.  All  trustworthy  appeal  to  intrinsic 
evidence  is  a  dehcate  historical  process  by  which 
the  critic,  having  steeped  himself  in  the  times  of  the 
writer  and  having  assimilated  himself  to  his  thought 
and  style,  thinks  his  thoughts  and  estimates  the 
value  and  fitness  of  words  with  his  scales.  The 
reading  w^hich  would  be  intrinsically  certain  in  Mr. 
Carlyle  might  be  intrinsically  ridiculous  in  Mr. 
Ruskin.  The  reading  that  we  should  commend  in 
Lucian  might  be  unthinkable  in  Epictetus ;  that 
which  would  be  appropriate  in  Lucretius  might  be 
impossible  in  John.  The  preparation  for  a  just  use 
of  this  method  of  criticism  consists,  therefore,  in  a 
serious  and  sympathetic  study  of  the  author  in  hand  ; 
and  without  this,  all  appeal  to  it  is  but  opening  the 
floodgates  to  the  most  abounding  error. 

Above  all  other  processes  of  criticism  this  method 
requires  in  its  user  a  fine  candour  and  an  incori-upti- 
ble  mental  honesty  which  are  content  to  read  from 
the  authors  with  which  they  deal  only  what  those 
authors  have  put  into  their    words,   and  which  can 


86  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

distinguish  between  what  Paul,  for  instance,  says, 
and  what  we  could  wish  he  had  said.  Despite  what 
we  may  have  antecedently  thought,  some  writers  are 
ungrammatical,  some  are  obscure,  some  are  illogical, 
some  are  inconsequent,  some  are  frightfully  infelicit- 
ous. And  the  business  of  the  textual  critic  is  not  to 
correct  their  grammar,  and  brighten  their  obscurities, 
and  perfect  their  logic,  and  chasten  their  style,  but 
to  restore  their  text  exactly  as  they  intended  to  write 
it,  whatever  there  may  be  in  it  to  offend  our  taste 
or  contradict  our  opinions.  Intrinsic  evidence  in 
the  hands  of  some  critics  means  nothing  else  than 
a  ruthless  elimination  of  everything  exceptional  or 
even  distinctive  in  an  author's  style.  When  Mr. 
Margoliouth  lays  it  down  as  a  canon  for  criticising 
the  Attic  tragedians  that  "  anything  which  is 
difficult  or  awkward  is  corrupt,"  we  more  than  doubt 
the  validity  of  his  methods  ;  and  when  Mr.  Maclellan, 
dealing  with  the  New  Testament,  states  as  the 
"  golden  canon,"  that  "  no  reading  can  possibly  be 
original  which  contradicts  the  context  of  the  passage 
or  the  tenor  of  the  writing,"  we  recognise  the  justice 
of  the  statement,  but  desiderate  some  safeguard  that 
the  test  shall  be  applied  from  the  point  of  sight  of 
the  author,  and  not  of  the  nineteenth -century  reader, 
in  whose  logical  infallibility  there  may  be  less  reason 
to  believe  than  in  that  of  the  writer  who  is  criticised. 
Delicate  as  the  process  of  intrinsic  evidence  thus 
Ijecomes,  however,  it  is  yet  not  only  a.  valuable  but 
also  an  indispensable  agent  of  criticism,  and  its  ver- 
dicts sometimes  reach  a  practical  certainty.  When- 
ever it  is  the  expression  of  careful  and  sympathetic 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM,         87 

btudy  of  an  author's  thought  and  style  it  demands  our 
serious  attention,  and  if,  when  so  used,  it  distinctly 
and  directly  opposes  a  reading,  it  may  attain  a  real 
finality.  Cases  of  this  kind,  where  intrinsic  evidence 
sets  itself  immovably  against  a  reading,  must  be  very 
sharply  distinguished  from  those  in  which  it  only 
adjudges  one  of  several  readings  to  be  on  the  whole 
preferable  to  the  others.  In  the  former  case  its 
verdict  has  an  absoluteness  which  is  wholly  lacking 
to  the  merely  relative  result  reached  in  the  latter. 
If  the  other  readings,  in  this  case,  any  or  all  of  them, 
would  have  seemed  unexceptionable  in  the  absence  of 
the  preferred  reading,  the  preference  thrown  upon 
this  by  intrinsic  evidence  can  carry  us  but  a  little 
way  towards  settling  the  text,  and  raises  but  a  faint 
presumption  against  any  other  form  of  evidence. 

The  variation  in  Matt.  vi.  1  may  perhaps  serve  as 
an  illustration  of  the  force  of  intrinsic  evidence  when 
thus  simply  passing  on  the  comparative  appropriate- 
ness of  two  readings.  The  Authorised  English  Version 
reads,  "  Do  not  your  alms  before  men,"  which 
the  Pv-evisers  change  to  "  Do  not  your  righteousness 
before  men."  Which  does  intrinsic  evidence  com- 
mend 1  Unquestionably  the  latter.  Throughout  this 
context  our  Lord  is  s^ivino-  instruction  concernina: 
righteousness ;  and  having  commanded  His  disciple? 
in  the  previous  chapter  (v.  20,  sq.)  to  see  to  it  that 
their  righteousness  exceeded  that  of  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees,  and  illustrated  the  command  by  instancing 
the  laws  against  murder,  adultery,  false  swearing,  and 
the  like,  he  proceeds  now  (vi.  1)  to  guard  against 
an  ostentatious  righteousness,  and,  just  as  before,  illus- 


88  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM, 

trates  His  command  by  instancing  certain  details, — 
here,  almsgiving  (2—4),  prayer  (3—15),  and  fasting 
(16—18).     To  read  '' righteousness  "  here  is  thus  far 
more  consonant  with    the  context,  and  even  brings 
out  a  connection  with  the  preceding  part  of  the  dis- 
course which  with  the  reading  ''  alms  "  is  in  danger 
of    being    overlooked.      "Righteousness,"     moreover, 
comes  with  a    Hebraistic  flavour    straight  from    the 
Old  Testament,  both  in  the  structure  of  the  phrase, 
"  to  do  righteousness,"  and  in  its  use  as  a  genus  of 
which    "alms"   is   a   species,  and  thus   is  especially 
suitable  in  the  Hebraistic  Matthew.     We  cannot  fail 
to   feel  that  such  considerations   create  a  very  sub- 
stantial corroboration  of  the  testimony  of  those  MSS. 
which  contain   "righteousness"  here.     Nevertheless, 
if  "alms"  were  strongly  pressed  upon  us  by  external 
evidence,  this   intrinsic  evidence   would  not  avail  to 
set  it  aside.    For  although  intrinsic  evidence  decidedly 
prefers   "  righteousness "   here,   it  does  not  distinctly 
refuse  "  alms  "  ;  apart  from  the  other  reading  "  alms  " 
would  be  easily  accepted  by  it,  and,  hence,  if  it  is 
otherwise    strongly    supported,  we  can  receive  it  as 
the    original    reading.      Another     example    of    like 
character   is    furnished  by   Luke  xv.   21,  where   the 
variation  concerns   the  insertion  or  omission  of  the 
repetition    from  verse   19   of  the    words  "Make  me 
as  one  of  thy   hired   servants."     Intrinsic    evidence 
casts  its  vote  for  omission.     That  the  son  does  not 
carry  out  his  intention  of  asking  to  be  made  a  servant 
after  his  father  had  hasted  to  claim  him  as  a  well- 
beloved  son,  is  a  fine  trait ;  and  we  hesitate  to  believe 
that  such  true  psychology,  and  such  a  beautiful  turn 


TEE   METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.         89 

of  composition,  have  entered  the  narrative  only  by  a 
slip  from  the  bungling  hand  of  a  sleepy  scribe.  But 
after  all,  may  it  not  have  done  so  ?  If  no  copy  had 
omitted  the  words,  we  should  scarcely  have  thought 
of  doing  so  ;  and  hence,  even  here,  intrinsic  evidence 
raises  a  probability  only  and  does  not  attain  certainty. 
In  a  word,  intiinsic  considerations,  in  all  such  cases, 
give  evidence,  and  oft-times  very  strong  evidence,  but 
scarcely  such  decisive  evidence  as  can  withstand  the 
pressure  of  a  strong  probability  brought  from  another 
quarter. 

The  evidence  is  more  decisive  in  such  a  case  as  that 
of  Acts  xii.  25,  where  to  read  that  Paul  and  Barnabas 
returned   "  to  Jerusalem,"  seems  flat    in  the  face  of 
the  context,  although  some  relief  may  be  got  from  an 
unnatural  construction.     It  is  to  be  observed,  how- 
ever, that  even  this  result  is  negative,  and  in  reject- 
ing ets  'IepoL'cra/\7j/x   here,  intrinsic  evidence  does  not 
necessarily  commend  thereby  either  of  its   rivals    c^ 
or  (XTTo  :  it   contents  itself  with  simply  refusing  the 
reading  offered  to  it.     This  may  be  illustrated  further 
by  the  variation  at  Acts  xi.  20.     Intrinsic  evidence 
utterly  refuses  to  have  anything  here  except  a  read- 
ing that  gives  the  sense  of  eXXrjva^  ;  but  again  this  is 
negative,  and  does  not  amount  to  a  demand  for  just 
this  word.     All  that   we  learn  from   it  is  that   the 
author  of  the    book  placed   here   some    word  which 
contrasted   with  the    "Jews"    of    v.    19,   and  which 
recorded  an  advance  on  the  previous  practice  of  the 
Church,  and  prepared  for  distinguishing  the  Christians 
from  the  Jews  (xi.  26),  and  for  sending  missions  to 
the  Gentiles  (xiii.)     It    tells  us  with  great  positive- 


90  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

nes.s,  therefore,  that  Greek-speaking  Jews  were  not 
meant  here,  but  veritable  Gentiles.  It  is  perhaps 
a  mistake  to  spring  too  rashly  to  the  conclusion, 
however,  that  this  is  equivalent  to  commending 
eXXryi/as  and  rejecting  kX\y]vi(Tra<i ;  some  other  matters 
need  settling  first.  But  if  eAXryvio-ra?  necessarily 
means  ''  Greek-speaking  Jews,"  then  this  evidence  does 
decisively  reject  it.  And  if  eXXrjvag  be  otherwise  well 
commended,  intrinsic  evidence  accepts  it  gladly  as 
furnishing  just  the  thought  it  desires. 

These' examples  illustrate  the  nature  and  the  limita- 
tions of  this  method  of  criticism.  It  cannot  be  used 
idly,  and  it  is  very  easy  to  abuse.  But  when  exer- 
cised with  care,  and  guided  by  a  sympathetic  insight 
into  the  literary  character  of  the  author  under  treat- 
ment, it  is  capable  of  much,  and  indispensable  to  the 
critic.  It  is  chary  of  giving  a  positive  verdict  with 
too  great  decision ;  but  it  may.be  safely  asserted  that 
no  conclusion  to  which  it  does  not  give  at  least  its 
consent  can  be  accepted  as  final  in  any  case  of  textual 

criticism. 

Transcrijytional  Evidence. 

By  transcriptional  evidence  is  meant  the  testi- 
mony which  each  reading  bears  to  its  own  origination. 
It  is  elicited  by  comparing  together  the  whole  series 
of  claimants  to  a  place  in  the  text,  in  any  given 
passage,  witli  a  view  to  discovering  in  what  order  they 
must  have  arisen — that  is,  which  one  of  them,  on  the 
assumption  of  its  originality,  will  best  account  for 
the  origin  of  all  the  rest,  or  to  what  reading  the 
whole  body  of  extant  readings  points,  as  their  source, 
and  fountain.     The  danger  to  which  this  method  is 


THE   METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.         91 

exposed  resides  in  our  liability  to  come  to  conclusions 
on  the  ground  of  tendencies  to  error  which  we  may 
observe  in  ourselves,  rather  than  on  the  ground  of 
the  actual  tendencies  that  led  astray  the  scribes 
who  have  transmitted  ancient  books  to  us.  Our  only 
safeguard  against  this  danger  is  to  make  preparation 
for  using  this  method  by  a  thorough  study  of  the 
character  of  scribes'  work,  and  of  the  ei-rors  to  which 
they  were  liable  as  exhibited  in  the  actual  errors 
which  they  have  made.  A  few  hours  of  careful 
scrutiny  of  a  series  of  acknowledged  errors  actually 
0CCU1-]  ing  in  our  codices  will  do  more  towards  fitting 
us  for  the  exercise  of  this  nice  process  than  any 
length  of  time  spent  in  a  2>'>'iori  reasoning.  Above 
all,  it  must  be  remembered  that  in  criticising — say, 
for  instance,  the  text  of  the  New  Testament — we  are 
dealing  with  a  writing  which  has  had  not  one  but 
many  scribes  successively  engaged  upon  it,  and  that, 
therefore,  we  are  to  deal  with  a  complex  of  tendencies 
which  may  have  been  engaged  in  progressively  cor- 
rupting a  text,  and  that  in  even  exactly  opposite 
directions.  The  greatest  difficulty  of  the  process  is 
found  in  experience  to  reside  less,  however,  in  in- 
ability to  arrange  any  given  series  of  readings  in  an 
order  which  may  well  have  been,  on  known  tendencies 
of  scribes,  the  order  of  their  origination,  than  in 
inability  to  decide  which  of  several  orders,  in  which 
they  seem  equally  capable  of  being  arranged,  is  the 
actual  order  of  their  origination.  Just  because  the 
tendencies  to  error  ran  through  a  very  wide  range 
and  pulled  in  divergent  directions,  it  often  seems 
equally  easy  to  account  for  each  rival  reading  as  a 


92  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

corruption  of  some  other;  and  the  acute  editor  is 
seldom  at  a  loss  to  defend  the  reading  which  he 
prefers,  by  pointing  out  some  way  in  which  the 
rival  readings  may  have  grown  out  of  it.  The  only 
remedy  against  this  ever-present  danger  is  a  more 
careful  study  of  the  MSS.  themselves,  and  a  more 
rigid  exclusion  of  all  undue  subjectivity  from  our 
judgments.  What  is  difficult  is  not  impossible;  and, 
as  experience  grows,  it  is  usually  discovered  that  we 
can  with  ever-increasing  confidence  select  from  a 
body  of  readings  the  one  which  actually  did  stand 
at  the  root  of  all  the  others.  Wherever  this  can  be 
done,  transcriptional  evidence  may  be  able  to  deliver 
a  very  decided  verdict. 

A  circumstance  which  appears,  at  first  sight,  suffi- 
ciently odd,  operates  to  give  us  especial  confidence  in 
the  union  of  transcriptional  and  intrinsic  evidence  in 
the  same  finding.  Just  because  intrinsic  evidence 
asks  after  the  best  reading  and  transcriptional  evi- 
dence after  the  reading  that  has  been  altered  by  the 
scribes,  they  are  frequently  found,  at  first  examina- 
tion, in  apparent  conflict.  An  obviously  satisfactory 
reading  is  not  especially  apt  to  be  changed  by  a 
scribe ;  it  is  often  the  play  of  his  mind  about  a 
reading  that  puzzles  him  in  one  way  or  another,  that 
distracts  hLs  attention  from  or  intrudes  his  conjec- 
ture into  his  w^riting.  When  we  ask  which  is  the 
best  reading,  therefore,  we  often  select  the  one  which 
appeared  also  to  the  scribe  to  be  the  best,  and  which, 
when  we  ask  after  the  original  reading,  just  on  this 
account  appears  to  be  a  scribe's  correction  of  a  less 
ob\T.ously  good  or  easy  reading,     liai-ely,  this  contra- 


THE  METHODS   OF  CRITICISM.         93 

diction  between  the  two  forms  of  internal  evidence 
is  ineradicable.  Commonly,  however,  it  is  only  the 
signal  to  iis  that  we  have  carelessly  performed  our 
Avork  in  the  one  process  or  the  other,  and  thus  directs 
us  to  a  further  study,  and  finally  to  a  complete 
reconciliation  of  the  divergent  findings.  The  reading 
that  seemed  to  us  intrinsically  unlikely  comes  often 
on  deeper  study  to  seem  intrinsically  certain ;  or  else 
the  reading  which  seemed  at  first  certainly  derivative, 
comes  to  be  seen  to  be  without  doubt  original.  When- 
ever these  two  so  easily  opposing  forms  of  evidence 
can  be  shown  to  unite  heartily  and  certainly  in 
favour  of  one  reading,  they  raise  a  presumption  for 
it  that  will  not  yield  to  any  other  kind  of  evidence 
whatever.  But,  for  precisely  the  same  reason,  when- 
ever they  seem  hopelessly  set  in  opposition  to  one 
another,  we  may  with  the  greatest  justice  suspect 
the  conclusions  at  which  we  have  arrived  by  the  one 
or  the  other, — perhaps  by  both. 

The  very  essence  of  a  preparation  to  engage  in 
criticism  by  the  aid  of  transcriptional  evidence  is 
experience  of  actual  scribes'  work.  Nothing  can 
quite  take  the  place  of  familiarity  with  MSS.  them- 
selves. Where  this  is  impossible,  facsimiles  may 
form  a  partial  substitute ;  and  even  the  information 
given  in  the  digests  may  be  turned  to  excellent 
account  by  the  diligent  student.  Some  primary  hints 
of  how  various  readings  have  arisen  in  the  text,  which 
may  serve  as  a  basis  for  further  and  more  direct 
studies,  are  all  that  it  is  possible  to  set  down  here. 

Considered  from  the  point  of  view  of  their  effect 
on   the   text,    various   reading's   are  either  additions. 


94  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

omissions,  or  substitutions.  But  such  a  classification 
is  of  small  use  to  the  student  of  transcriptional 
evidence.  What  he  desires  to  know  is  how  various 
readings  originate,  that  he  may  have  some  means 
of  investigating  the  origin  of  the  readings  that  come 
before  him.  From  this  point  of  view,  all  readings 
may  be  broadly  classified  as  intentional  and  uninten- 
tional corruptions.  Every  change  brought  into  the 
text  is  the  result  either  of  a  conscious  and  intentional 
alteration  made  by  the  scribe,  or  of  an  unintentional 
and  unconscious  slip  into  which  he  has  fallen. 
Taking  the  mass  of  various  readings  together,  a  very 
inconsiderable  proportion  of  them  can  be  attributed 
to  intentional  changes,  and  any  detailed  classification 
of  them  is  so  far  arbitrary  that  many  readings  may 
be  equally  easily  accounted  for  on  two  or  more 
hypotheses,  and  hence  may  be  assigned  indifferently 
to  either  of  two  or  more  classes.  With  this  explana- 
tion a  rough  classification  of  the  sources  of  error  may 
be  ventured,  as  follows  : — - 

I.  Intentional  corruptions  : 

1.  Linguistic  and  rhetorical  corrections. 

2.  Historical  corrections. 

3.  Harmonistic  corrections. 

4.  Doctrinal  corruptions. 

5.  Liturgical  corruptions. 

II.  Unintentional  corruptions  : 

\.  Errors  of  the  eye. 

2.  Errors  of  the  memory. 

3.  Errors  of  the  judgment. 

4.  Errors  of  the  pen. 

5.  Errors  of  the  speech. 


THE   METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.         95 

Most  of  the  corruptions  which  may  be  fairly  classed 
as  intentional  fall  under  the  head  of  linguistic  and 
rhetorical  corrections,  and  were  introduced,  we  may 
believe,  almost  always  in  good  faith  and  under  the 
impression  that  an  error  had  previously  crept  into 
the  text  and  needed  correcting.  Sometimes  they 
were  the  work  of  the  scribe  himself,  sometimes  of 
the  official  corrector  (somewhat  analogous  to  the 
modern  proof-reader)  under  whose  eye  the  completed 
MS.  passed  before  it  left  the  "  publishing  house." 
Examples  may  be  found  in  the  correction  of  dialectic 
forms,  such  as  the  rejection  of  the  second  aorist 
termination  in  a,  and  the  substitution  of  the  more 
common  forms — e.g.,  T^XOofxev,  ■^XOere,  r]X6ov  for  •^A.^a/xcv, 
i^A-^are,  r)\6a.v ;  the  euphonic  changes  which  transform 
A.^/xi//o/xat,  /\r^/>t(^^€t?  into  Xrjxf/oixat,  \i^(fiO€L<s  or  iKKaKelv 
into  ey/ca/ceti/ ;  the  smoothing  out  of  the  grammar,  as, 
e.g.,  when  in  Matt.  xv.  32  rjfMepat  rpeU  is  changed 
into  r]fX€pa<;  Tpfi^,  or  in  Matt.  xxi.  23  iX.06vTo<i  avrov 
into  iXOovTL  avTw,  or  in  Mark  vii.  2  e/xe/xi/^avro  is 
inserted  and  thereby  a  difficult  sentence  rendered 
easy.  Here,  too,  may  be  ranged  such  corrections  as 
the  change  of  the  participles  Kpd^as  and  a-n-apa^a^ 
in  Mark  ix.  26  into  Kpd^av  and  a-rrapd^av  in  order  to 
make  them  agree  grammatically  with  their  neuter 
noun  TTvev/xa.  Examples  of  corrections  for  clearing 
up  historical  difficulties  may  be  found  in  the  change 
of  "  Isaiah  the  prophet "  into  "  the  prophets "  in 
Mark  i.  2  ;  of  ''  sixth  "  into  "  third  "  in  John  xix.  14, 
and  the  like.  Hai-monistic  corruptions,  though  not 
confined  to  the  Gospels  (compare,  for  example, 
Acts  ix,   56  with  xxvi.   14,   15),  are,  of  course,  most 


96  TEXTUAL   CRITICIS2I. 

frequent  there,  and  form,  whether  consciously  intro- 
duced or  unconsciously,  one  of  the  most  fertile 
sources  of  corruption.  Familiar  examples  may  be 
found  in  the  assimilation  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  as 
recorded  by  Luke  to  the  fuller  form  as  recorded  by 
Matthew,  and  the  insertion  of  "  unto  repentance " 
in  Matt.  ix.  13  from  Luke  v.  32.  Something  very 
similar  has  often  happened  to  the  quotations  from  the 
Old  Testament,  which  are  enlarged  from  the  Old 
Testament  context  or  more  closely  conformed  to  the 
LXX.  wording.  Examples  may  be  found  in  the 
addition  of  lyyti^et  fxoi  ....  to)  aTOfxari  avrwv  kol 
out  of  Isa.  xxix.  13  into  Matt.  xv.  8,  and  of  ov 
ij/£vSoixapTvpy](r€Lf;  in  Kom.  xiii.  9.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  is  doubtful  if  any  doctiinal  corruptions  can 
be  pointed  to  with  complete  confidence.  Even  the 
Trinitarian  passage  in  1  John  v.  7  and  part  of  8 
may  have  innocently  got  into  the  text.  The  most 
likely  instances  are  the  several  passages  in  which 
fasting  is  coupled  with  prayer  in  some  texts — as,  e.g., 
in  [Matt.  xvii.  21],  Mark  ix.  29,  Acts  x.  30,  1  Cor. 
vii.  5 ;  but  even  these  are  doubtful.  Liturgical  cor- 
ruptions, on  the  other  hand,  are  common  enough,  but 
can  seldom  be  assigned  to  intention  except  in  the 
service-books,  where  they  deceive  nobody,  or  in  cer- 
tain MSS.  redacted  for  use  as  service-books,  which 
have  been  fitted  for  public  reading  by  such  changes  as 
inserting  ''  And  turning  to  His  disciples  He  said,"  at 
Luke  x.  22  (the  beginning  of  a  lesson),  or  of  "  But 
the  Lord  said,"  at  Luke  viii.  31,  or  the  change  of 
"  His  parents "  into  "  Joseph  and  Mary,"  at  Luke 
ii.   41,  and  the  ]ike. 


THE  METHODS  OF  CEITICISAf.         97 

So  long,  however,  as  we  are  dealing  with  corrup- 
tions which  may  with  some  plausibility  be  classed 
as  intentional,  w^e  are  on  the  confines  of  the  subject. 
The  fecund  causes  of  the  abounding  error  that  has 
crept  into  the  text  lie  rather  in  the  natural  weak- 
ness of  flesh,  limiting  the  powers  of  exact  attention. 
From  each  of  the  sources  of  error  which  have  been 
tabulated  above  as  unintentional  have  sprung  many 
kinds  of  corruption.  Under  errors  of  the  eye,  for 
instance,  are  to  be  classed  all  those  mistakes,  of 
whatever  kind,  which  have  arisen  through  a  simple 
misreading  of  the  MS.  that  lay  before  the  copyist 
to  be  copied.  The  ancient  mode  of  writing  in  con- 
tinuous lines,  and  the  similarity  that  existed  between 
some  of  the  letters,  facilitated  such  errors.  A  con- 
siderable body  of  omissions  have  arisen  from  what  is 
called  "  homoeoteleuton  "  or  "  like-ending."  When 
two  feucceeding  clauses  or  words  end  alike,  the  last 
is  apt  to  be  omitted  in  copying ;  the  copyist,  having 
written  out  the  first,  glances  back  at  the  MS.  for 
the  next  clause,  and,  his  eye  catching  the  like-ending 
of  the  second  clause,  he  mistakes  this  for  what  he 
has  just  written,  and  so  passes  on  to  the  following 
words,  thus  omitting  the  second  clause  altogether. 
The  same  result  often  happens  when  the  same 
sequence  of  letters  occurs  twice  near  together,  and 
when  two  consecutive  clauses  begin  alike  instead  of 
ending  alike — a  case  which  differs  in  name  rather 
than  in  fact  from  the  one  just  described.  An 
example  of  ^'  homoeoteleuton  "  may  be  found  at 
1  John  ii.  23,  where  the  whole  clause,  ''  He  that 
confesseth  the  Son,  hath  the  Father  also,"  is  omitted 


98  TEXTUAL   CBITICISM. 

in  some  codices  because  both  it  and  the  preceding 
clause  end  with  the  words  rov  Traripa  l^ct.  An 
instance  in  which  only  a  few  letters  are  involved  is 
the  omission  of  6  'I-qaov^  in  Matt.  ix.  28,  which  is 
apparently  due  to  the  custom  of  writing  'Ir;o-oi)s  in 
abbreviation,  thus  :  Aerei(^YTOicoic, — in  which  oic  was 
easily  mistaken  for  the  preceding  oic.  Other  ex- 
amples are  the  omission  of  the  whole  verse,  Luke 
xviii.  39,  in  a  few  codices,  and  of  a  clause  in  John 
vi.  39  by  C. 

Another  error  of  the  eye  arises  from  mistaking 
similar  letters  for  one  another,  such  as,  e.g.,  the 
confusion  of  (one  way  or  the  other)  ei  and  h  (Luke 
xvi.  20,  etA-Kco^cvos — r^XKco/xevos ;  2  Cor.  xii.  1,  Stj — Set); 
n  and  ti  (John  vii.  31,  fxr]  TrXeiova — fxrjTt  TrXecova)  ; 
H  and  N  (Matt.  xvii.  12,  oaa  r)6eX.7]aav — ocrav  OeXrjaav); 
e  and  O  (Luke  vii.  13,  ecnrXay-^KrOy] — ccnrXay')(yi(Tov)  ; 
Y  and  B  (Aa^tS — AavtS),  and  the  like.  Possibly  the 
famous  reading  ©eos  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16  may  have 
arisen  as  an  error  of  the  eye  whereby  oc  was  mis- 
taken for  the  abbreviation  0c,  which  differs  from  it 
only  by  two  light  lines;  although  it  may  have  equally 
well  arisen  as  a  strengthening  correction  or  a  mere 
blunder  of  a  scribe,  who  mechanically  added  the  lines 
which  he  had  so  frequently  attached  to  this  pair  of 
syiiibols.  The  misreading  of  abbreviations  was  also 
a  fertile  source  of  error,  and  may  be  classed  with 
errors  of  the  eye.  One  of  the  most  frequent  in- 
stances results  in  the  insertion  of  6  'Iryo-ovs  after 
avrot?,  by  first  doubling  the  oic,  and  then  mistaking 
it  for  the  abbreviated  oic.  In  like  manner  we  have 
Kat/xu  in  Rom.  xii.  11,  probably  through  a  misreading 


THE   METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.         99 

of  the  abbreviated  kroj  (Kuptw)  for  K^poo  (Katpw).  So 
too,  the  Kara  iravra  of  Acts  xvii.  25  may  have  arisen 
from  misreading  K,T(5vn(\NT<\  (Kat  ra  irdvTa).  A  still 
more  striking  instance  is  found  at  Acts  xiii.  23, 
where  the  abbreviation  cpd^iN  (or  ccothrmn)  has  been 
misread  as  if  it  were  cpi(\N  (or  ccoTHpidkN),  and  thus 
o-coT^pa  'lr](jovv  transmuted  into  crwrr/ptav.  Still  another 
class  of  errors  of  the  eye  arises  from  the  wandering 
eye  taking  up  and  inserting  into  the  text  a  word  or 
part  of  a  word  from  a  neighbouring  line  or  a  neigh- 
bouring column.  Perhaps  the  form  'Ao-a^  in  Matt. 
i.  7  has  so  come  into  the  text  from  the  influence 
of  the  'Iwa-acfxxT,  which  stands  immediately  beneath 
it.  Even  whole  lines  may  be  omitted  or  exchanged 
by  a  similar  slip,  and  this  may  be  the  true  account 
to  give  of  the  varied  relative  position  of  the  clauses 
in  1  Cor.  i.  2.  Another  error  of  the  eye  of  somewhat 
similar  kind  produces  an  assimilation  of  neighbouring 
terminations — as,  for  example,  in  Eev.  i.  1,  where 
Tov  ayyeXov  avTov  tov  SovX.ov  avTOV  stands  for  tov 
ayyeXov  avTov  to)   SovXo)   avrov. 

As  errors  of  memory  we  should  class  all  that  brood 
which  seem  to  have  arisen  from  the  copyist  holding 
a  clause  or  sequence  of  letters  in  his  somewhat 
treacherous  memory  between  the  glance  at  the  MS.  to 
be  copied  and  his  writing  down  what  he  saw  there. 
Hence  the  numerous  petty  changes  in  the  order  of 
u^ords ;  the  substitution  of  synonyms,  as  ctTrev  for  €(f>7] 
in  Matt.  xxii.  37,  ck  for  (xtto,  and  the  reverse  (cf. 
Acts  xii.  25),  ofjiixdrixiv  for  oc^^aX/xcov  in  Matt.  ix.  29,  and 
the  like;  permutation  of  tenses,  as,  e.g.,  ySaTrrto-avrc? 
for    /3a7rTit,ovT€s   in    Matt,    xxviii.   19,  and    the   like. 


100  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

Here,  too,  belong  many  of  the  harmonistic  corruptions, 
and  the  conformation  of  quotations  from  the  Old 
Testament  to  the  LXX.  text,  the  scribe  allowing  his 
memory  unconsciously  to  affect  his  writing. 

As  errors  of  the  judgment  may  be  classed  many 
misreadings  of  abbreviations,  as  also  the  adoption  of 
marginal  glosses  into  the  text,  by  w^hich  much  of  the 
most  striking  corruption  which  has  ever  entered  the 
text  has  been  produced.  As  the  margin  was  used  for 
both  corrections  and  glosses,  it  must  have  been  often 
next  to  impossible  for  the  scribe  to  decide  what  to 
do  with  a  marginal  note.  Apparently  he  solved  his 
doubt  generally  by  putting  the  note  into  the  text. 
Doubtless  this  is  the  account  to  give  of  the  abundant 
interpolation  that  deforms  the  text  of  such  codices 
as  those  cited  by  the  symbol  D.  More  interesting- 
examples  are  afforded  by  such  explanatory  notes  as 
"  who  walk  not  according  to  the  flesh  but  according 
to  the  spirit,"  inserted  at  Rom,  viii.  1,  to  define 
"  those  in  Christ  Jesus "  of  the  text ;  or  as  the 
account  of  how  it  happened  that  the  waters  of  Beth- 
saida  were  healing,  inserted  at  John  v.  3,  4.  Even 
more  important  instances  are  the  pericope  of  the 
adulteress  inserted  at  John  vii.  53,  sq.^  and  the  last 
twelve  verses  of  Mark,  both  of  which  appear  to  be 
scraps  of  early  writings  inserted  from  the  margin, 
where  they  had  been  first  written  with  an  illustrative 
or  supplementary  purpose.  What  a  sleepy  oi-  stupid 
scribe  could  do  in  this  direction  is  illustrated  by  such 
a  reading  as  he^acrOac  7y//as  iv  ttoAXois  to)V  avTLypdcfxjjv 
OVTW5  evprjTai  kol  ov  KaOo)<;  r/ATricra/xev,  which  stands  in 
a  minuscule  copy  at  2  Tor.  viii.  4,  5. 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       101 

Under  errors  of  the  pen  we  class  all  that  great 
body  of  variations  which  seem  to  be  due  to  a  simple 
careless  miswriting  of  w^hat  lay  rightly  enough  in  the 
mind  of  the  scribe  at  the  time,  such  as,  e.g.,  trans- 
positions, repetitions,  petty  omissions  of  letters,  and 
the  like.  It  is  impossible  to  draw  any  sharp  line  of 
demarcation  between  this  class  and  errors  of  the  eye 
or  memory,  and  many  readings  combine  more  than 
one  slip  in  their  origin.  For  instance,  when  in 
Matt.  ix.  15  we  read  oxANApeH  in  Codex  D  instead 
of  OT(XNAnApeH,  we  recognise  that  there  has  been 
confusion  of  n  and  n,  and  then  homceoteleuton  at 
work  in  omitting  ah  after  an  ;  but  the  result  is 
simply  the  omission  of  two  letters.  So,  in  1  Cor. 
vii.  34,  w^hen  D,  E,  omit  the  second  /cat  in  the  sequence 
of  letters  MeMepiCTd.iKd.iH,  w^e  scarcely  know  whether 
to  call  it  sim]3le  incuria,  or  to  explain  it  by  homceo- 
teleuton of  the  TAi  and  kai.  On  the  other  hand, 
when  X  writes  ei?  ra  ayta  twice  in  Heb.  ix.  12,  or  B 
repeats  €cf>vyov  ol  Sk  KpaT-qaavres  in  Matt.  xxvi.  56,  57, 
we  have  before  us  a  simple  blunder ;  and  the  like  is 
found  in  every  codex.  Matters  of  this  kind  call  for 
remark  only  when  the  slij)  of  the  scribe  creates  a 
difference  in  sense  which  may  mislead  the  reader — as, 
e.g.,  when  E,  M,  etc.,  transform  eXa/3ov  in  Mark 
xiv.  65  by  a  simple  transposition  of  letters  into 
i(3aXov,  and  H  corrects  this  into  eftaXXov ;  or  when  H, 
by  a  careless  repetition,  inserts  an  article  into  the 
phrase  kK^aXkovra  [ra]  SatfxovLa  in  Luke  ix.  49.  A 
more  difficult  case  occurs  at  Matt.  xxvi.  39,  where 
N  A,  C,  D,  etc.,  read  npoceAOcoN,  but  B,  M,  IT,  etc., 
npoc'OcoN;  either  tho  former  is  a  careless  insertion, 


102  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

or  the  latter  a  careless  omission  of  c,   helped  by  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  other  round  letters  o  and  e- 

Finally,  by  errors  of  speech  we  mean  all  those 
which  have  grown  out  of  the  habitual  forms  of 
speech  (in  grammar,  lexicography,  or  pronunciation)  to 
which  the  scribe  was  accustomed,  and  which  therefore 
he  tended  to  write.  His  purism  obtruded  itself  in 
correcting  dialectic  forms  or  Hebraistic  terms  of 
speech  into  accordance  with  his  classical  standard. 
Examples  of  this  have  been  given  under  another 
caption.  Sometimes,  on  the  other  hand,  the  idiom 
would  be  too  elegant  for  his  appreciation,  and  he 
would  unconsciously  conform  it  to  his  habitual  speech. 
An  instance  may  be  seen  in  Acts  xvi.  3,  where 
D,  E,  H,  L,  P,  substitute  •^Seto-av  yap  aTravre?  rov  Trarepa 
avTov  on  "FiXXrjv  {iTr^p^ej/  for  the  correct  •jyScKrav  yap 
Travre?  oTt  "FtXXrjv  6  TraTrjp  avTov  V7n]p)(ev — to  the  ruin 
of  the  proper  emphasis.  The  most  considerable  body 
of  corruptions  of  this  sort,  however,  grows  out  of 
what  is  technically  called  ''  Itacism,"  that  is,  out  of 
that  confusion  of  vowels  and  diphthongs  which  was 
prevalent  in  pronunciation  and  could  not  fail  to  affect 
here  and  there  the  spelling.  It  consequently  happens 
that  L  is  continually  getting  written  for  et  and  vice 
versd,  and  at  and  «;  tj,  l,  and  ec;  rj,  ot  and  v;  o  and  w;  yj 
and  e  are  confused  in  the  spelling.  For  determining 
the  age  of  these  confusions  of  sounds  in  the  speech  of 
the  people,  we  are  dependent  on  epigraphical  material, 
and  on  its  testimony  they  must  be  carried  back  to  a 
very  remote  antiquity.  The  confusion  of  ct  and  t,  for 
instance,  occurs  even  in  an  Attic  inscription  earlier  than 
300  B.C.,  and  was  already  prevalent  in  other  regions 


THE  METHODS   OF  CRITICISM.       103 

before  that.  From  the  end  of  the  third  century  it 
was  prevalent  everywhere,  while  in  the  second  cen- 
tury A.D.  the  distinction  between  the  two  was  a  ci'ux 
orthogra2?hica.  At  the  same  time  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  a  standard  spelling  was  current,  and  care- 
fully written  MSS.  tried  to  conform  to  it ;  so  that 
w^e  are  not  surprised  to  learn  that  the  MSS.  differ 
m.uch  among  themselves  in  the  amount  and  in  the 
classes  of  itacism  that  have  found  their  way  into 
their  pages.  For  instance,  among  the  papyrus  frag- 
ments of  Homer,  those  usually  cited  as  N  and  2  are 
very  free  from  itacism,  while  O  (of  the  first  century 
B.C.)  is  full  of  it.  Among  New  Testament  MSS.  fc{ 
shows  a  marked  preference  for  the  spelling  in  t,  and 
B  for  the  spelling  in  ct.  Allowance  for  such  parti- 
cular characteristics  must  be  made  in  passing  judg- 
ment on  readings  ;  but  it  must  also  be  borne  in  mind 
that  all  the  codices  of  the  ISTew^  Testament  were  copied 
at  a  time  when  itacistio  spelling  was  current,  and 
hence  are  more  or  less  untrustworthy  when  the  point 
is  to  distinguish  between  the  vowels  thus  confused. 
The  most  common  confusions  are  those  between  « 
and  t,  o>  and  o,  at  and  e ;  and  after  these  those 
between  -q  and  the  two  pairs  t  and  ei,  and  ot  and  v. 
The  effect  of  the  first  may  be  illustrated  by  the 
readings  etSere  and  tSere  in  Phil.  i.  30,  or  the 
readings  larai,  clarat  in  Mark  v.  29.  The  most  com- 
mon effect  of  the  confusion  between  o  and  oo  is  to 
confound  the  indicative  and  subjunctive  moods;  the 
following  are  examples :  Matt.  xiii.  15,  taoroj/xat 
K,  U,  X,  A,  Ida-ofxac  H,  B,  C,  D,  L,  etc. ;  1  Cor.  xv.  49, 
(^opecrw/xev  5<,  A,C,D,  etc.,  cfiopea-ofxev  B,  46;  2  Cor.  vii.  1, 


104  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

Ka6apL(T(j)iJL€v  J<,  B,  D,  etc.,  KaOaptcrofJiev  P;  Rom.  v.  1, 
exiojxev  ii,  A,  B,  G,  T>,  L,  exofxcv  P,  etc. ;  Heb.  xiii.  10, 
l;((ji)yu,6v  L,  etc.,  €y;pjxa/  X,  etc.  ;  Heb.  xii.  28,  ex^ijx^v 
A,  C,  D,  L,  9(o/>tcv  N,  K,  P,  etc.  There  is  no  MS.  of  the 
New  Testament  that  does  not  at  times  confuse  o  and 
o) ;  consequently,  the  testimony  of  every  MS.  is  liable 
to  suspicion  on  this  point,  and  our  decision  turns 
largely  on  intrinsic  evidence.  The  confusion  of  c  and 
at  may  produce  or  remove  infinitives — as,  e.g.,  Luke 
xiv.  17,  ipx^a-Oe  13,  346  Latt.,  epx^a-Oat  5<,  A,  D,  L ; 
Gal.  iv.  18,  ^rjXovcrOe  X,  B,  etc.,  Ir^XovcrOai  A,  C,  etc. 
Occasionally  also  it  transforms  a  word  into  another — 
e.^.jMatt.  xi.  16,  krepoi^  X,  B,  C,  D,  L,  kraipoi^  G,  S,XJ,  V, 
etc.  In  •^/x-ei/  and  r^fxrjv  Acts  xi.  11,  e  and  7]  are  confused. 
In  d  and  i^  of  2  Cor.  ii.  9,  and  ;>(pto-To?  and  xPW'^'^  ^^ 
1  Peter  ii.  3,  we  have  instances  of  the  triad  r],  ct,  t. 
The  frequent  confusion  of  the  pronouns  17/xers  and  v/xet? 
in  their  various  cases  is  an  example  of  rj,  01,  v.  Even 
a  and  c  seem  occasionally  to  pass  into  one  another — 
e.g.,  Rev.  xvii.  8,  KatVcp  tcmv  and  koI  irapicrTiv.  As  a 
connected  specimen  of  itacistic  writing  we  add  a  part 
of  the  closing  prayer  of  a  certain  John  of  Constan- 
tinople, who  wrote  a  psalter  now  at  Cues  :  crocrov  fxe 
Xp€  (TOTip  Tov  Koo-jLLov  oj  (ro(Ta<;  TTcrpov  ev  Tt  OaXaa-et'  os 
€KLVov  /x€  Stacrocroi^  o  6<;  Kai  eXeicrov  jxai.  Let  the  student 
exercise  his  ingenuity  in  i-estoring  this  to  the  oi-dinary 
spelling  of  a  Greek,  which  will  translate  :  "  Save  me, 
O  Christ,  Saviour  of  the  world,  who  didst  save  Peter 
in  the  sea;  like  him  save  me  entirely,  O  God,  and 
have  mercy  on  me."  This  was  written  in  the  ninth 
or  tenth  century. 

These  instances  are  probably  enough  to   illustrate 


THE   METHODS  OF  CRITICISM,       105 

the  way  in  which,  even  by  the  most  honest  copying, 
the  text  of  any  document  may  become  corrupt;  and 
to  serve  as  examples  of  the  kind  of  facts  with  which 
the  student  must  have  a  personal  familiarity  in  order 
to  be  prepared  to  trace  back  a  reading  to  its  source 
in  a  scribe's  error,  or  to  classify  a  body  of  readings 
according  to  their  origination.  It  is  important  for 
him  next  to  obtain  an  intimate  knowledge  of  the 
habits,  so  to  speak,  of  the  important  individual  MSS. 
in  order  to  check  by  familiarity  with  the  habits  of 
the  one  scribe  the  conclusions  that  are  reached  from 
a  study  of  the  general  habits  of  all  scribes.  A  fact 
in  point  has  been  already  mentioned :  j<  tends  to 
write  t  everywhere  for  et,  and  B  to  write  et  every- 
where for  t,  and  a  knowledge  of  this  fact  is  a  help 
in  determining  readings  involving  ct  and  t,  for  which 
these  codices  are  sponsors.  That  A  loves  synonyms, 
01'  in  other  words  the  scribe  that  wi-ote  this  codex 
had  an  active  mind  that  worked  as  he  copied,  and 
so  felt  the  sense  of  what  he  wrote  more  than  most 
scribes,  is  an  important  fact  to  know  when  we  are 
deciding  on  the  probability  of  a  synonymous  reading 
that  A  supports.  That  the  scribe  of  ^  was  a  rapid 
penman,  proud  apparently  of  his  handwriting  ;  and 
that  B's  scribe  was  on  the  contrary  a  careful,  plodding 
fellow,  who  copied  the  text  before  him  with  only  such 
petty  slips  as  such  a  writer  would  fall  into, — brief 
omissions,  doubling  of  short  words,  repetitions  of 
letters  and  such  stupidities, — these  and  such  facts 
enable  us  to  pass  ready  judgment  on  variations  which 
might  otherwise  somewhat  puzzle  us. 

Above  all,   however,   it   is  necessary  to  remember 


106  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM, 

that  every  attempt  to  account  for  the  errors  that  occur 
in  our  MSS.  is  an  attempt  to  bring  the  accidental 
under  rule,  and  every  effort  to  classify  them  according 
to  their  sources  is  only  an  effort  to  group  the  effects 
of  human  carelessness;  so  that  much  must  remain 
over  of  which  we  can  only  speak  as  instances  of 
incuria.  It  may  be  useful  to  the  student  to  look 
at  a  brief  list  of  slips  of  the  scribe  of  N,  gleaned 
from  the  digest  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and 
to  consider  how  many  of  them  can  be  assigned  to  the 
several  classes  mentioned  above  : — 

Incuria  of  X  in  Hebrews. 

Heb.      i.     5.  Omit   avrco  from  "I  shall  be  [to  him] 
for  a  father." 
i.     8,   Omit  TTys  evOvTr]To<;  pa/38os. 
i.  12.   Add  /cat  with  crv  Se. 
ii.  18.    Omit  7retpao-^et5. 
iv.     9.  Omit  the  whole  verse, 
iv.  11.    Omit  rt9. 
viii.     3.  Omit  /cai. 
viii.  10.   Mov  for  fxoc. 
ix.     5.   Ej/co-rtv  for  eaTtv. 
ix.  12.  Et9  ra  ayta  written  twice. 
X.     7.  Omit  7]Koi. 

X.  1 1 .  Order  changed  to  Actr.  kuO.  y/JiCf). 
X.  26.   Trys  cTTLyi^oicnav  for  rv/v  einyvwcrLV. 
X.  32.   A/xaprta?  for  T^/xcpas. 
X.  36.   Change  of  order  to  ^pctav  ex^rc. 
X.  39.   Ei9  aTTcoXias  for  cis  aTrioXciav. 
xi.     5.   Ot6  for  StoTi. 
xi.     8.  Change  of  order  to  KXrjpovofXLav  Xa/xf^a. 


THE   METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       107 

Heb.     xi.     9.    Omit  ti/s  after  eTrayye/Vtac. 
XI.  20.   Omit  lo-aaK. 

xi.  31.   Insert  e7riA.eyo/xei/>y  before  Tropvrj. 

xii.     1.   TqXiKovTov  for  toctovtov. 

xii.  10.   O  /x,€v  for  ot/xer. 
xiii.     2.   T?7i/  (fyiXoievtav  for  tt^s  cfaXo^. 
xiii.  12.   Omit  eTraOev, 

xiii.  18.    Ort  KaXqvOa  yap  on  KaXrjv  before  7ret^o/xt-, 
xiii.  22.   Omit  yap. 
xiii.  23.  Ep;)(7;(T^e  for  epxrjrat. 

There  are  in  this  list  instances  of  errors  of  the 
eye  (homceoteleuton,  the  wandering  eye  catching  a 
neighbouring  word,  confusion  of  similar  letters),  of 
the  memory,  of  the  judgment,  of  the  pen,  and  of  the 
speech, — and  others  also.  It  looks  as  if  the  scribe 
were  taking  a  sly  nap  when  he  was  writing  the  tenth 
chapter,  and  as  if  he  either  nodded  again  or  was 
interrupted  by  an  unthinking  chatterer  at  xiii.  18, 
where,  at  least,  we  find  a  very  odd  case  of  repetition. 

Efforts  have  been  made  to  generalise  upon  the 
phenomena  of  the  various  readings,  and  so  to  furnish 
"  canons  of  criticism  "  for  the  guidance  of  the  student. 
Transciiptional  evidence  cannot,  however,  be  reduced 
to  stiff  rules  of  procedure.  All  "  canons  of  criticism  " 
are  only  general  averages,  and  operate  like  a  proba- 
bility based  on  a  calculation  of  chances.  A  "  chance  " 
is  always  open  that  this  particular  instance  is  one 
of  the  exceptions.  But,  although  to  use  them  as 
strict  rules  to  square  our  conclusions  by  were  but 
to  invite  error,  general  rules  are  very  useful,  as 
succinctly  embodying  the  results  of  broad  observation. 


108  TEXTUAL    CFdTICISM. 

If  we  use  them  only  as  general  guides,  and  expect 
to  find  exceptions  to  them  continually  turning  up, 
the  following  three  rules  are  valuable :  — 

1.  The  more  difficult  reading  is  to  be  preferred : 
founded  on  the  observed  tendenc}'-  of  scribes  to 
render  the  sense  smooth  by  correction  or  unconscious 
tinkering. 

2.  The  shorter  reading  is  to  be  preferred  :  founded 
on  the  observed  habit  of  scribes  to  enlarge  rather 
than  shorten  the  text. 

3.  The  more  characteristic  reading  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred :  founded  on  the  observed  tendency  of  scribes 
to  reduce  all  they  touch  to  their  own  level,  and  so 
gradually  eliminate  everything  especially  characteristic 
of  an  author. 

Not  co-ordinate  with  these,  but  above  them  and 
inclusive  of  them,  stands  the  one  great  rule  that 
embodies  the  soul  of  transcriptional  evidence :  that 
reading  is  to  be  preferred  from  which  the  origin  of 
all  the  others  can  most  safely  be  derived.  Knowledge 
of  the  habits  of  scribes  and  of  the  phenomena  of 
MSS.  is  needed  to  interpret  this  rule.  Common- 
sense  is  here  even  more  than  usually  needed.  But 
given  the  knowledge  and  common-sense,  this  one  rule 
adequately  furnishes  the  worker  in  this  department 
of  evidence. 

That  much  could  be  done  towards  settling  the  text 
of  any  woi-k  by  the  use  of  intrinsic  and  transcriptional 
evidence  alone,  which  would  be  genei-ally  recognised 
as  sound,  is  certain.  But  it  is  equally  clear  that  a 
special  danger  attends  processes  that  are  so  nice  and 


THE  METHODS   OF   CRITICISM.       109 

delicate,  of  the  intrusion  of  those  wishes  that  are 
fathers  to  thoughts ;  and  in  criticising  the  text  of  a 
book  that  stands  in  such  close  relation  to  our  dearest 
beliefs  as  the  New  Testament,  this  danger  reaches 
its  maximum.  This  does  not  render  the  method  of 
in  ernal  evidence  of  readings  invalid ;  nor  does  it 
exonerate  critics  from  the  duty  of  using  it, — with 
strict  honesty  and  a  severe  exclusion  of  improper 
subjectivity.  But  it  throws  sufficient  doubt  on  indi- 
vidual judgment  in  attaining  some  of  its  results,  to 
render  it  desirable  to  test  its  conclusions  by  some 
less  easily  warped  method  of  investigation.  We 
gladly  remember,  then,  that  besides  "internal  evi- 
dence of  readings "  we  have  "  external  evidence  of 
readings  "  to  depend  on,  and  proceed  to  inquire  after 
the  methods  of  using  it. 

2.  External  Evidence  of  Readings. 

[a)  Comparative  Criticism   and   Internal  Evidence  of 
Documents. 

The  crudest  method  that  could  be  adopted  to  decide 
between  readings  on  the  ground  of  external  evidence 
would  be  simply  to  count  the  witnesses  for  each 
reading  and  follow  the  greatest  number.  It  requires 
little  consideration  to  perceive  the  illegitimacy  of  such 
a  method.  The  great  practical  difficulty  stands  in 
the  way  of  adopting  the  principle  that  the  majority 
shall  rule,  that  we  cannot  certify  ourselves  that  we 
have  the  majority.  For  this,  we  must  first  collate 
every  known  copy,  and  even  then  the  doubt  would 
hang  over  us  that    mayhap    the    majority   of    copies 


110  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

are  yet  unknown :  have  not,  indeed,  the  majority 
actually  perished  ?  If  we  should  adopt  a  simple 
majority  principle,  therefore,  we  could  never  reach 
certainty ;  we  could  never  be  sure  that  the  copies  as 
yet  unknown,  or  hopelessly  lost,  might  not  alter  the 
balance ;  and  we  should  be  betraying  the  text  into  the 
hands  of  the  chance  that  has  preserved  one  MS.  and 
lost  another.  A  greater  theoretical  difficulty  lies 
behind.  Who  can  assure  us  that  the  many  are  the 
good  1  The  majority  of  MSS.  are  late  MSS. ;  and  if 
it  be  the  original  text  that  we  are  seeking,  is  it  likely 
that  the  many  MSS.  of  the  eleventh  century  wall 
better  help  us  to  it  than  the  few  of  the  fourth? 
Dare  we  overmatch  the  multitude  of  years  by  the 
multitude  of  copies, — our  two  codices  of  the  fourth 
century  by  the  mixed  hordes  that  throng  on  us  from 
the  fourteenth  ?  If  corruption  be  largely  due  to  the 
fortunes  of  hand-copying,  it  will  of  necessity  be  pro- 
gressive, and  the  MSS.  of  the  earlier  centuiies  may 
be  rightfully  presumed  to  be  purer  and  better  than 
those  of  the  later.  We  may  even  expect  to  find  in 
them  the  parents  of  the  very  later  codices  wdiich  now 
would  crowd  them  out  of  the  witness-stand.  If  so, 
to  follow  mere  numbers  is  to  betray  the  text  into  the 
hands  of  the  later  corruption. 

Shall  we,  then,  say  that  not  the  most  MSS.  but 
the  oldest  shall  rule  %  This  certainly  would  be  a  far 
better  canon.  But  it  is  met  again,  on  the  threshold 
of  practical  use,  by  a  double  difficulty, — theoretical 
and  practical.  After  all,  it  is  not  the  mere  number 
of  years  that  is  behind  any  MS.  that  measures  its 
distance    from    the    aut()graj)h,    but    the    number   of 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       Ill 

copyings.     A   MS.   of  the  fourth  century  may  have 
been  copied  from  another  but  little  older  than  itself, 
and  this  again  from  another  but  a  little  older  than  it, 
and  so  on  through  a  very  long  genealogy ;  whereas  a 
MS.  of  the  eleventh  century  may  have  been  copied 
from  one  of  the  third,  and  it  from  the  autogiaph. 
It  is  not,  then,  the  age  of  the  document,  but  the  age 
of  the  text  in  it,  that  is  the  true  measure  of  antiquity; 
and    who    shall    certify    us    that   many  of  our    later 
documents  may  not  preserve   earlier  texts  than  our 
earliest  MSS.  themselves? — or,  indeed,   that  all  our 
later   documents  may  not  be  of  purer  descent  than 
our  few  old  codices  1     With  the  frankest  acceptance  cf 
the  principle  that  the  age  of  a  document  is  presump- 
tive evidence  of  the  age  of  the  text,  it  is  clear  that 
we  can  reach  little  certainty  in  criticism  by  simply 
agreeing  to  allow  weight  to  documents  in  proportion 
to  their  age.     And  here  the  practical  difficulty  enters 
the   problem :    how   much   greater   weight   shall   we 
allow  to  greater  age  1     Certainly  two  fourth- century 
documents  cannot  reduce  all  tenth-century  documents 
to  no  value  at  all,  simply  by  reason  of  theii^  greater 
age  :  but  how  nice  the  question  as  to  the  exact  incre- 
ment of  weight  that  must  be  added  for  each  century 
of  additional  life  !     Professor  Birks  set  himself  once 
to  investigate  this  question  ;  and  his  conclusion  was 
"  that  on  the  hypothesis  most  favoui-able  to  the  early 
MSS.,  and  specially  to  the  Vatican  [B],  its   weight 
is  exactly  that  of  two  MSS.  of  the  tifteenth  century, 
while    the   Sinaitic   [i<]   weighs   only  one-third  mcjre 
than  an  average  MS.  of  the  eleventh  century."     Mr. 
Monro  was  at  pains  to  point  out  certain  errors  in 


112  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

Professor  Birks'  calculations  which  ap])ear  to  vitiate 
his  conclusions.  But  for  the  purposes  of  actual 
criticism  were  they  not  valueless  even  if  correct  ? 
How  is  it  possible  to  calculate  the  value  of  each  docu- 
ment relatively  to  all  the  others  on  the  ground  of  age 
alone  ?  Let  us  confess  it  :  to  admit  that  the  older  a 
MS.  is  the  more  valuable  it  is  likely  to  be,  carries  us 
but  an  infinitesimal  way  towards  the  actual  work  of 
criticism,  and  it  is  entirely  impossible  to  apportion 
their  values  to  codices  by  their  ages.  Though  we 
may  feel  that  a  MS.  of  the  fourth  century  ought  to 
be  a  better  and  safer  witness  than  one  or  two,  or 
a  hundred,  or  a  thousand  for  that  matter,  of  the 
fifteenth,  we  cannot  certify  ourselves  of  this  with 
regard  to  any  given  MS. ;  and  we  certainly  cannot 
arrange  all  our  MSS.  in  a  table  of  relative  weights 
as  resulting  from  their  relative  ages,  and  then  use 
this  table  as  a  touchstone  for  our  critical  problems. 
It  is  a  plain  fact  that  MSS.  need  not  and  do  not 
always  vary  in  weight  directly  according  to  age. 

A  great  step  forw^ard  is  taken  when  w^e  propose  to 
allow  MSS.  weight,  not  according  to  their  age,  but 
according  to  the  age  of  the  text  which  they  contain. 
To  Tregelles  must  be  ascribed  the  honour  of  intro- 
ducing this  method  of  procedure,  which  he  appropriately 
called  "Comparative  Criticism."  It  is  a  truly  scientific 
method,  and  leads  us  for  the  first  time  to  safe  results. 
Briefly  stated,  it  proceeds  as  follows.  The  earlier 
versions  and  citations  are  carefully  ransacked,  and  a 
list  of  readings  is  drawn  from  these  dated  sources  wdiich 
can  be  confidently  declared  to  be  ancient.  Each  MS. 
is  then  tested,  in  turn,  bv  this  list.     If  a   MS.  con- 


THE   METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       113 

tains  a  considerable  proportion  of  these  readings,  or 
of  readings  which  on  grounds  of  transcriptional  pro- 
bability  are  older  than  even  these,  it  is  demonstrated 
to  contain  an  old  text.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  a 
MS.  fails  to  contain  these  readings,  and  presents 
instead  variants  which  according  to  transcriptional 
probability  appear  to  have  grown  out  of  them,  or 
which  can  be  proved  from  dated  citations  to  have 
been  current  at  a  later  time,  its  text  may  be  assumed 
to  be  late.  From  an  examination  of  the  MSS.  thus 
proved  to  exhibit  an  early  text,  we  may  next  obtain 
a  very  clear  general  notion  of  what  the  earlier  text 
is,  and  this  will  serve  us  as  a  more  extended  test 
of  the  age  of  texts  contained  in  MSS.,  and  we  may 
confidently  divide  them  into  two  great  classes — the 
eai'ly  and  the  late. 

Here,  it  is  plain,  our  feet  rest  on  firm  ground. 
What  may  be  done  towards  settling  the  text  by 
this  method  may  be  observed  in  the  text  which  Dr. 
Tregelles  actually  framed,  and  which  stands  to-day 
as  his  suitable  and  honourable  monument.  But  a 
little  consideration  will  satisfy  us  that,  as  an  engine 
of  criticism,  this  method  is  far  from  perfect.  It  will 
furnish  us  with  a  text  that  is  demonstrably  ancient, 
and  this,  as  a  step  towards  the  true  text,  is  a  very 
important  gain.  It  is  something  to  reach  a  text  that 
is  certainly  older  than  the  fourth  century, — that  was 
current  in  the  third  or  second  century.  But  this 
can  be  assumed  to  be  the  autographic  text  only  if 
we  can  demonstrate  that  the  text  current  in  the 
second  or  third  century  was  an  absolutely  pure  text. 
So  far  from  this,  however,  there  is  reason  to  believe 


114  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

that  the  very  grossest  errors  that  have  ever  deformed 
the  text  had  entered  it  already  in  the  second  century. 
By  this  method,  therefore,  we  may  deal  successfully 
■with  all  cases  of  variation  in  which  the  older  and 
later  texts  stand  opposed  as  bodies,  and  thus  may 
sift  out  a  vast  rabble  of  late  corruptions ;  but  we 
stand,  with  it  only  to  help  us,  helpless  before  all 
cases  in  which  the  oldest  witnesses  themselves  differ. 
This  result  might  have  been  anticipated.  If  our 
touchstone  only  reveals  to  us  texts  that  are  ancient, 
we  cannot  hope  to  obtain  for  our  result  anything  but 
an  ancient  text.  What  we  wish,  howevei-,  is  not 
merely  an  ancient  but  the  true  text. 

Yet  another  process  has  been  developed  for  our  aid 
in  this  perplexity.  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the 
way  is  open  to  the  estimation  of  MSS.,  not  by  the 
age  of  the  parchment  on  which  they  are  written,  nor 
yet  by  the  age  of  the  text  which  they  contain,  but 
by  the  actual  excellence  of  the  text  which  they  con- 
tain. This  is  another  great  advance.  For  we  are  now 
invited  to  assign  weight  to  MSS.  according  to  their 
real  value.  The  process  by  which  this  method  under- 
takes to  ascertain  the  relative  value  of  the  diifei-ent 
MSS.  is  appropriately  called  "  Internal  Evidence  of 
Documents,"  and  proceeds  by  interrogating  each  MS. 
as  to  its  own  value,  by  testing  it  by  the  only  kinds 
of  evidence  available — namely,  intrinsic  and  tran- 
scriptional evidence.  A  rude  example  of  what  is 
intended  by  this  will,  perhaps,  be  its  best  explana- 
tion. Let  us  suppose  two  copies  of  a  will  or  deed 
to  be  laid  before  us,  and  it  to  be  our  task  to 
determine  which  is  the  better — i  e.,  the  more  correct. 


THE   METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       115 

What  would  be  the  common-sense  procedure?  Beyond 
doubt,  we  should  begin  by  noting  every  point  in 
which  they  differed ;  and  then,  taking  this  list  of 
various  readings,  we  should  ask,  in  the  case  of  each 
reading,  which  appeared  to  be  the  original.  We 
should  have  two  ways  of  determining  this  :  in  each 
case  we  should  ask,  Which  reading  is  it  probable, 
considering  the  context,  style,  and  the  like,  the  author 
wrote?  and.  Which  reading,  considering  the  known 
habits  of  the  scribes,  the  accidents  to  which  they  are 
liable,  and  the  like,  is  it  probable  that  the  scribe  had 
before  him  in  order  to  produce  the  other  1  When 
these  two  modes  of  inquiry  resulted  in  the  same 
answer,  the  reading  would  be  determined  by  a  high 
degree  of  probability.  Now,  after  having  thus  passed 
through  the  whole  list  of  various  readings,  we  could 
count  up  what  proportion  of  them  had  been  deter- 
mined in  favour  'of  one  MS.  and  what  proportion  in 
favour  of  the  other.  This  would  furnish  us  with  a 
fail"  general  estimate  of  the  comparative  value  of  the 
two  copies.  If,  for  instance,  the  two  differed  in  a 
hundred  places,  and  the  two  varieties  of  internal 
evidence  of  readings  united  in  commending  the  read- 
ings of  one  in  ninety  of  these,  and  those  of  the  other 
in  only  ten,  we  should  have  no  difficulty  in  greatly 
preferring  the  former  to  the  latter  copy.  Nay,  it 
would  not  be  strange  if  we  now  revised  our  decision 
in  some  of  the  other  ten  cases,  and  allowed  our  demon- 
strably better  copy  to  determine  their  readings  on 
documentary  grounds.  No  doubt  such  a  method 
offers  us  only  probable  results ;  but  it  is  scarcely  open 
to  doubt  but  that,  so  far  as  they  go,  they  are  sound 


116  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

results,  and  in  favourable  cases  the  probability  may 
reach  moral  certainty.  It  is  equally  plain  that  the 
method  is  not  essentially  affected  if  the  documents 
we  have  to  compare  are  a  dozen  instead  of  two,  or 
even  a  hundred  or  a  thousand;  nor  yet  if  our  two 
varieties  of  evidence  fail  to  give  us  clear  or  united 
testimony  in  a  number  of  the  readings.  It  would 
still  remain  true  that  the  relative  value  of  the  MSS. 
could  be  ascertained  by  determining  the  proportionate 
number  of  their  special  readings  which  internal  evi- 
dence will  commend.  After  its  own  relative  value 
has  been  assigned  to  each  MS.  of  a  work  by  this 
method,  we  may  proceed  to  its  textual  criticism  on 
documentary  grounds,  allowing  each  MS.  the  w^eight 
thus  indicated.  This  is  not  reasoning  in  a  circle. 
By  one  process,  tentatively  applied,  we  attain  a 
general  notion  of  the  value  of  each  MS.  When  a 
considerable  number  of  readings  have  been  used  in 
this  work,  errors  in  their  estimation  check  one 
another,  and  our  general  result  is  sound.  It  is  quite 
consistent  next  to  treat  all  these  readings  as  still 
undecided :  this  is  but  to  recognise  that  tentative 
results  as  to  the  details  are  provisional.  We  may, 
therefore,  justly  call  in  the  MSS.  according  to  the 
relative  values  which  have  been  assigned  them  by 
our  tentative  results  en  masse  to  decide  now  on  each 
reading  in  detail. 

Precisely  this  process  has  been  applied  to  the  MSS. 
of  the  New  Testament.  And  we  are  asked  to  deter- 
mine the  relative  weight  of  the  witnesses  for  each 
disputed  reading  by  allowing  to  them  the  weights 
assigned  them  by  this  method  of  testing.     It  would 


THE   METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       117 

be  idle  to  dispute  the  validity  of  the  process.  It  is 
transparently  just  and  scientific.  It  is  equally  im- 
possible to  doubt  that  it  mil  enable  us  to  come  to 
conchisions  on  which  we  can  depend.  Especially 
when  taken  in  connection  with  the  former  method, 
which  marshals  MSS.  according  to  the  age  of  the 
texts  they  exhibit,  this  method,  which  marshals  them 
according  to  the  tested  value  of  their  texts,  will  lead 
us  to  very  important  conclusions,  both  in  the  way  of 
testing  the  results  obtained  by  the  former  method, 
and  in  carrying  them  some  steps  farther.  The  mere 
fact  that  the  results  of  this  method  accord  with  those 
obtained  by  the  former,  so  far  as  they  were  legiti- 
mate, gives  us  confidence  in  using  it.  It  may  be  in 
one  sense  an  accident  that  our  oldest  MSS.  should 
be  shown  by  comparative  criticism  to  contain  the 
most  ancient  text,  although  an  accident  in  the  line 
of  the  pre-existing  presumption.  But  it  cannot  be 
by  mere  accident  that  the  text  obtained  as  the  most 
ancient  should  in  the  main  accord  wdth  that  obtained 
as  the  best.  And  it  is  reasonable  to  be  led  by  this 
accordant  result  of  two  independent  methods  to  put 
confidence  in  the  further  results  obtained  by  one  of 
them  which  in  the  nature  of  the  case  cannot  be  tested 
by  the  other.  We  are  justified,  therefore,  in  using 
internal  evidence  of  documents  to  decide  for  us  the 
readings  in  wiiich  the  older  text  is  itself  divided. 

As  already  intimated.  Dr.  Tregelles'  text  may  be 
taken  as  the  type  of  the  results  attainable  by  com- 
parative criticism.  He  was  accustomed  to  divide 
the  MSS.  into  classes,  thus :  {a)  Uncial  MSS.  of  the 
most  ancient  class, — i.e.,  those  earlier  than  the  seventh 


118  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

century;  (h)  Later  uncial  MSS.  of  special  importance  ; 

(c)  Certain   important    MSS.   in    minuscule   letters; 

[d)  The  later  uncials.  He  aimed  at  citing  the  testi- 
mony of  all  the  uncial  MSS.,  those  of  the  minuscules 
the  text  of  which  was  ancient,  all  versions  down  to 
the  seventh  century,  and  the  fathers  down  to  and 
including  Eusebius.  In  class  {h)  he  included  L,  X,  Y, 
A,  0,  H,  of  the  Gospels,  P  of  Acts  and  the  Catholic 
Epistles,  and  F,  G,  of  Paul.  In  class  (c)  he  included 
1,  33,  69  of  the  Gospels,  13,  31,  61  of  Acts  and  the 
Catholic  Epistles,  17,  37,  47  of  Paul,  and  38  of  the 
Apocalypse.  To  these  might  well  be  added,  now,  the 
minuscules  cited  in  the  lists  of  minuscules  given  in 
the  proper  place  above.  The  other  classes  (a),  {d), 
may  be  gathered  from  the  lists  of  uncial  MSS. 
given  above.  When  tested  by  internal  evidence  of 
documents,  the  MSS.  arrange  themselves  in  a  not 
dissimilar  classification.  As  is  practically  universally 
confessed,  B  is  by  this  means  shown  to  be  the  best 
single  MS.,  and  }<  stands  next  to  it.  Naturally 
enough  the  documents  most  like  B  are  given  the  next 
place.  But  the  general  character  of  such  codices  as 
D,  D^,  G3,  Fg,  is  not  very  high,  when  tested  by  internal 
evidence  of  documents,  although  their  text  is  certainly 
very  old,  as  comparative  criticism  satisfactorily  proves. 
Among  the  versions,  the  palm  falls  to  the  Memphitic 
and  Thebaic. 

A  various  reading  that  occurs  in  Matt.  vi.  4  may 
serve  us  as  an  example  of  the  working  of  these 
processes.  Shall  we  read  in  this  verse  simply, 
"And  thy  Father  that  seeth  in  seci-et  shall  reward 
thee  "  ?  or  shall   we  add  the  word  "  openly  "  at  the 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       119 

close?  Tischendorf  states  the  evidence  thus: — omit 
cv  Tw    cfjavep,^:    nBDZ   1.  22.  108.  209.  aP  cdd^^  ap 

Aug  {multa  exx.  Latina  sic reddet  tihi  palam 

in   Greeds  quce  prioirt  sunt  non  invenirtius 

palam)  fF^  k,  vg  fr  sax  cop  syr'^^  (Or  4,256,cdd.  ^-^^^ 
liquet  quo  spectet),  Cyp  Aug  Hier  Chrom  al  ; 
insert  h  rw  (^avepw  :  E  K  L  M  S  U  X^^^  (e  spatio) 
a  b  c  f  gHi  q  syr'^'^^^  et^^  go  arm  jeth  al  Const  Chr 
Op  al.  In  order  to  interpret  the  evidence  by  com- 
parative criticism,  we  may  arrange  the  matter  as 
follows : — 


• 

Omit. 

Insert. 

Uncials  prior  to  the  seventh 

century. 
Good  later  uncials. 
Good  minuscules. 
Later  uncials. 

X,B,D,Z,cdd 
ap  Aug. 

1.  22.  [33].  209. 

L  X'*'i^  ^  spatio. 

rel. 

all. 

Second  century  versions. 
Fourth  centiuy  versions. 

Fifth  century  versions. 
Seventh  century  versions. 

Afr.  Lat.,  Syr. 

Cu.,  Copt. 
Vulg.  Lat. 

Europ.  Lat.,  Ital. 

Lat.,  Syr.scii.  Qq. 

^th. 
Arm. 

SyrP. 

Fathers  before  Eusebius. 

Fathers  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury. 

Fathers  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury. 

Gyp. 
[Aug.]  Hier. 

Chrom. 

Chrys.  Constt. 

120  TEXTUAL    CRITICISM. 

We  observe  that  the  addition  ''  openly  "  does  not 
occur  in  any  known  Greek  MS.  before  the  eighth 
century,  or  in  any  version  or  patristic  citation  before 
the  fourth  century.  Some  good  later  uncials,  L  of 
the  eighth  century,  and  apparently  also  X  of  the 
ninth,  witness  for  it,  but  the  better  minuscules,  again, 
omit  it.  No  second-century  version  contains  it,  but 
all  later  ones  do,  with  the  sole  exception  of  the  Latin 
Yulgate.  Its  absence  from  this  and  from  Jerome's 
quotations  is  probably  to  be  explained  by  Augustine's 
precise  statement  that  many  Latin  copies  of  his  day 
contained  it,  but  none  of  the  earlier  Greek  copies, — 
which  in  itself  is  a  very  strong  testimony  to  the 
superior  antiquity  of  the  omission.  On  this  evidence 
the  conclusion  is  probable  that  Iv  ro)  ^avepw,  balancing 
the  previous  tv  tw  Kpv7rr(2,  was  first  introduced  into 
the  Greek  text  late  in  the  third  or  early  in  the  fourth 
century.  When  we  now  withdraw  our  attention 
from  the  question  of  antiquity,  and  consider  the  wit- 
nesses according  to  their  values,  as  determined  by 
"  internal  evidence  of  documents,"  we  discover  that 
the  best  witnesses  array  themselves  for  omission. 
On  this  ground,  too,  therefore,  we  decide  to  omit 
the  v/ords. 

Practically  much  the  same  division  of  evidence  is 
met  with  in  the  more  important  matter  of  the  inser- 
tion or  omission  of  the  doxology  to  the  Lord's  Prayer 
(Matt.  vi.  13).  There  is,  however,  this  important 
difference  :  the  doxology  appears  in  Mdtnesses  as  early 
as  the  second  century.  For  its  omission  are  quoted  : 
t<,  B,  D,  Z,  1,  17,  118,  130,  209;  scholia  in  the 
margin  of  many  copies  that  contain  it ;  a,  b,  c,  fF^,  g^,  1, 


THE  METHODS   OF  GRIT  TO  ISM.       121 

vg.,  cop. ;  Or.,  Nyss.,  Cses.jCyi'^^,  Max.,  Cyp.,Tert.,  etc. 
For  its  insertion  :  E,  G,  K,  L,  M,  8,  \J,  Y,  A,  n,  X  <I>, 
very  many  others,  f,  g^,  [k]  q,  syr*^*^'",  et*'^  et^^',  ietli.,  arm., 
go.  [sail],  [Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,]  Constt., 
Chrys.,  and  later  fathers  generally.  The  MS.  evidence 
does  not  differ  markedly  from  the  distribution  observed 
in  Matt.  vi.  4.  But  among  the  versions  a  doxology  is 
found  in  the  second  century  Curetonian  Syriac  and  the 
Sahidic  (  =  Thebaic)  ;  and  in  the  fathers,  in  the  early 
second  century  "  Teaching  of  the  Apostles."  There  is 
no  question,  therefore,  but  that  a  doxology  is  found 
attached  to  the  Lord's  Prayer  as  early  as  the  very 
opening  of  that  century.  Nevertheless,  the  oldest 
M8.  in  which  it  is  found  dates  no  higher  than  the 
sixth  century  {'%).  Even  with  comparative  criticism 
alone  beneath  our  feet,  we  are  not  helpless  here ;  for 
when  w^e  observe  that  the  doxolog}^  appears  in  the 
second  century  in  as  many  differing  forms  as  there 
are  documents  that  contain  it,  that  it  occurs  in  no 
MS.  before  the  sixth  century,  and  in  no  commentator 
on  the  Lord's  Prayer  before  Chrysostom  at  the  end 
of  the  fourth  century,  conclusions  as  to  its  late  origin 
present  themselves  with  some  force,  and  we  can 
suspect  that  it  entered  the  Greek  Testament  about 
the  end  of  the  third  or  opening  of  the  fourth  century. 
When  we  call  in  ''  internal  evidence  of  documents," 
we  see  that  the  best  old  documents  are  ranged  for 
omission,  and  our  conclusion  is  strengthened  accord- 
ingly. 

The  reading  in  John  vii.  8,  the  evidence  in  the 
case  of  which  was  analysed  a^JaaL..^ages  back,  is  dis- 
tinctly more   difficult  to  deal  with.     The  two  oldest 


122  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

and  best  MSS.  are  here  set  in  opposition  to  one 
another ;  the  second-century  versions  are  divided 
as  three  to  one,  but  the  best  and  the  worst  agree 
against  the  second  best,  and  the  most  stand  with 
the  second  MS.  against  the  best.  This  is  typical 
of  the  division  of  the  evidence  throughout.  How, 
then,  can  we  decide  the  matter  on  grounds  either  of 
the  antiquity  of  the  witnesses  or  of  tlieir  excellence  ? 
Cases  of  just  this  complexity  meet  us  on  nearly  every 
page  of  the  New  Testament.  What  are  we  to  do 
with  them  ? 

These  examples  have  been  designed  to  illustrate 
both  the  strength  and  the  limitations  of  the  method 
of  criticism  which  we  are  expounding.  That  much 
can  be  accomplished  by  it  is  clear.  That  it  is  scientific 
and  sound,  so  far  as  it  will  carry  us,  is  equally  cer- 
tain. But  it  is  also  true  that  it  is  helpless  whenever 
the  old  or  the  good  documents  are  pretty  evenly 
divided;  and  that  when,  as  in  the  New  Testament, 
we  have  many  documents  to  deal  with,  it  does  not 
always  carry  with  it  that  practical  certainty  which 
we  desiderate.  The  reason  of  both  shortcomings  is 
that  its  decisions  rest  everywhere,  at  bottom,  on  an 
arithmetical  balance.     Let  us  try  to  explain. 

By  this  method  of  criticism,  when  all  the  old  MSS. 
stand  opposite  the  later,  and  when  all  the  good 
MSS.  stand  opposite  the  bad,  we  have  no  difficulty 
in  deciding  the  reading.  But  they  will  not  always 
so  arrange  themselves ;  perpetually  some  of  the  older 
are  on  the  side  of  the  later,  some  of  the  better  on 
the  side  of  the  worse.  What  are  we  to  do  in  such 
cases  ?     Even  if  we  are  confident  that  K,  B,  A,  0,  D, 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.      123 

when  combined,  may  stand  against  the  world,  how  do 
we  judge  the  group  to  be  weakened  by  the  defection 
of  A  ]  or  of  C  i  or  of  B  ?  or  of  t^,  B  ?  or  of  A,  C,  D  ? 
or  of  any  two  or  any  three  or  any  four  of  them  1 
These  are  puzzling  questions.  But  until  they  are 
answered  this  method  of  criticism  is  helpless  before 
the  immense  variety  of  divided  testimony  which  meets 
the  critic  in  every  part  of  his  work.  Clearly,  in 
such  cases  everything  depends  at  bottom  on  our 
knowing  not  only  that  i<,  B,  C,  D,  present  an  old,  and 
E,  S,  U,  V,  a  late  text ;  or  that  N,  B,  C,  present  a 
good  and  most  minuscules  a  bad  text ;  but  also,  very 
accurately  indeed,  the  exact  proportional  excellence 
and  consequent  weight  of  each  MS.  :  how  much 
better  precisely  B  is  than  5<,  and  N  is  than  C,  and  C 
is  than  Y  or  10  or  19.  How  else  can  we  estimate 
the  effect  of  each  defection  1  Often  decision  on  the 
bearing  of  documentary  evidence  will  absolutely 
depend  on  an  exact  knowledge  of  the  precise  value 
of  each  MS.,  and  a  consequent  ability  to  estimate 
the  weight  each  brings  to  a  group  with  its  presence, 
or  takes  from  it  by  its  absence.  Obviously  this 
means  (at  our  present  stage)  nothing  less  than 
ability  to  speak  of  MSS.  in  terms  of  numerical 
formulae,  and  the  whole  matter  of  documentary  evi- 
dence becomes  an  arithmetical  balance.  If,  assuming 
an  ordinary  minuscule  of  the  fourteenth  century  to 
rank  as  1  in  weight,  w^e  know  that  B  ranks  as  2000, 
and  N  as  1800,  and  C  as  1^00,  and  so  on,  we  can 
accurately  estimate  the  value  of  each  group  and  by 
a  simple  sum  in  arithmetic  settle  the  text.  But 
unless  we  know  this  or  something  equivalent  to  it. 


124  TEXTUAL    Ct^ITICISM. 

the  bearing  of  the  documentary  evidence  is  constantly 
escaping  us.  We  cannot  tell  what  effect  on  the 
weight  of  X  B  A  C  D,  for  example,  the  defection 
of  B  will  have ;  we  cannot  tell  whether  j^  B  D  Z  may 
not  be  enough  to  carry  oui-  suffrages,  and  {<  B  D  not 
enough  ;  whether  E  K  L  M  S  U  X  may  not  be  too 
weak  to  follow,  but  E  G  K  L  M  S  U  T  A  H  5  <^ 
too  strong  not  to  follow.  Manage  it  by  whatsoever 
method  we  please,  and  conceal  the  fact  from  others 
or  ourselves  by  any  way  of  speaking  of  it  that  we 
may,  the  whole  process  of  criticism  which  deals  with 
MSS.  as  separate  units  amounts  to  nothing  less,  at 
bottom,  than  an  attempt  to  settle  readings  by  an 
open  or  veiled  arithmetical  balance.  We  are  not  now 
arguing  whether  such  a  method  be  not  fundamentally 
wrong ;  hwt  only  that  it  cannot  be  cai-ried  successfully 
through  any  case  where  the  testimony  is  well 
divided  unless  the  arithmetical  balance  be  accurately 
estimated.  And  it  is  clearly  apparent  that  such  a 
balance  is  not  accurately  estimated,  and,  indeed, 
cannot  be.  But  by  as  much  as  it  is  not,  by  so  much 
is  our  criticism  but  little  removed  in  all  nice  pro- 
blems from  guesswork. 

Let  us  try  to  realise  in  thought  still  further,  what 
is  implied  in  the  very  attempt  to  decide  readings  by 
such  a  balance.  No  less  than  this:  the  possibility 
of  overwhelming  all  early  and  good  testimony  by  the 
sheer  numbers  of  late  and  bad  testimony.  Does  not 
the  very  principle  of  an  arithmetical  balance  yield  the 
point  that  the  early  and  good  may  be  overborne  by 
the  late  and  bad,  if  only  the  latter  be  numerous 
enough  ?     So,   in  pretending  to  estimate  and   weigh 


THE  METHODS   OF  CRITICISM.      125 

witnesses,  we  fall  into  the  trap  of  merely  counting 
them.  What  we  want  is  a  method  which  will  allow 
later  testimony  to  overrule  earlier,  only  if  it  be  good 
enough  to  do  so.  But  this  method  and  all  methods 
of  a  mere  balance  of  individual  documents  inevitably 
puts  itself  in  the  position  that  the  best  and  oldest 
may  be  overborne,  if  only  we  can  produce  a  sufficient 
number  of  later  documents.  Say  that  B  is  made 
equal  to  two  thousand  thirteenth-century  copies,  and 
ten  or  a  hundred  thousand  nineteenth-century  copies, 
it  would  be  in  the  power  of  an  enterprising  printer 
to  produce  enough  very  debased  copies  "to  overbear  its 
testimony.  The  procedure  would  be  transparently 
ridiculous,  no  doubt ;  but  this  only  proves  that  we 
need  some  method  of  criticism  which  is  not  capable 
of  such  a  reductio  ad  ahsurdum, — w^hich  does  not 
proceed  on  an  assumption  which  can  only  arbitrarily 
protect  us  from  such  a  conclusion.  Something  else 
is  needed  beyond  knowledge  of  the  general  relative 
age  of  the  texts  that  documents  contain,  or  the 
general  relative  goodness  of  them,  or  anything  that 
concerns  single  documents,  before  we  can  reach  veiy 
secure  results. 

That  those  who  have  made  .use  of  "comparative 
criticism"  have  avoided  the  w^eakness  of  an  arith- 
metical balance  in  dealing  with  all  that  class  of 
readings  in  wdiich  the  older  text  differs  from  the 
later  is  no  doubt  true.  But  they  have  done  it  by 
confessedly  or  practically  ignoring  all  later  testimony. 
In  this  they  have  built  better  than  their  theory 
gave  them  ground  for,  and  they  have  given  us  a 
text,   consequently,   better   than   their  theory  woidd 


126  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

legitimately  defend.  It  has  not  unjustly  been  made 
theii'  reproach  that  because  they  had  discovered  that 
the  better  testimony  was  to  be  found  in  a  certain 
body  of  witnesses,  they  arbitrarily  treated  all  the  rest 
as  if  they  had  no  testimony  to  offer  at  all.  And 
in  all  that  class  of  variations  in  which  the  older  docu- 
ments differ  among  themselves,  these  great  critics 
have  continually  fallen  a  prey  to  the  imperfection 
of  their  method,  and  their  results  have  depended 
less  on  a  scientific  procedure  than  on  a  certain  per- 
sonal quality  which  we  may  call  "  critical  tact,"  and 
which  is  but  another  name  for  a  keen  appreciation 
of  the  bearing  of  internal  evidence  of  readings.  The 
discovery  of  a  single  MS.  (s)  revolutionised  Tischen- 
dorf's  text.  Tregelles,  always  more  cautious  and 
consistent,  was  yet  repeatedly  led  into  the  most 
patent  errors.  Every  one  who  has  attempted  to 
decide  on  the  weight  of  documentary  groups  on  an^^ 
large  scale  has  necessarily  been  made  to  feel  very 
keenly  that  very  much  of  criticism  which  depends 
on  such  methods,  wherever  internal  evidence  of 
readings  is  not  really  decisive,  is  little  removed  from 
arbitrary  decision  or  guesswork.  From  all  which  it 
is  clear  that  some  method  which  will  enable  us  to 
deal  with  MSS.  in  groups  and  classes  rather  than 
as  individuals  is  absolutely  necessary  before  we  can 
determine  more  than  the  outlines  of  the  text  with 
confidence. 

{h)  Internal  Evidence  of  Groiqn. 

A  method  of  procedure  which  will  relieve  us  from 
these   dilHculties    iias    been   pointed;  out    under   the 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       127 

appropriate  name  of  ''internal  evidence  of  groups." 
Internal  evidence  of  readings  is  the  evidence  of  its 
own  value  which  each  reading  supplies  when  sub- 
jected to  the  tests  of  intrinsic  and  transcriptional 
probability.  Internal  evidence  of  documents,  as  we 
have  just  seen,  is  the  evidence  of  its  own  value  which 
each  document  furnishes ;  and  is  obtained  by  noting 
what  proportion  of  the  characteristic  readings  of  a 
document  approve  themselves  as  probably  genuine 
under  the  twofold  test  of  intrinsic  and  transcriptional 
evidence.  This  process  can  be  carried,  with  equal 
ease,  a  step  higher,  and  be  applied  to  any  given 
group  of  documents,  and  thus  become  internal  evi- 
dence of  groups.  Nothing  prevents  our  collecting 
all  the  readings  supported  by  any  group  of  docu- 
ments in  which  we  may  be  for  the  time  interested, 
and  then  trying  the  list  in  each  of  its  items  in  turn 
by  transcriptional  and  intrinsic  evidence.  If  the 
majority  of  its  characteristic  readings,  when  thus 
tested,  approve  themselves,  the  group  is  a  good 
group;  if  the  majority  are  condemned,  it  is  a  bad 
group;  and  the  proportion  between  those  approved 
and  those  condemned  will  furnish  an  accurate  cri- 
terion of  the  actual  value  of  the  group.  When  two 
or  more  groups  are  successively  subjected  to  this 
testing,  the  proportional  result  obtained  in  each 
case  suppHes  data  for  determining  their  relative 
values. 

Thus  we  may  at  will  obtain,  by  this  process, 
grounded-  decision  as  to  the  weight  of  any  given 
group,  and  so  determine  the  actual  composite  value 
of  any  combination  of  documents.      If,  fur  iubtauce. 


128  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

we  are  studying  the  reading  in  John  vii.  8,  which 
we  have  ah-eady  had  before  us,  we  may  take  the 
group  ts»  D  K  M  n  17**  389  p^*^',  and  trace  it 
throughout  the  Gospels,  collecting  all  the  readings 
which  it  supports  into  a  list.  Next  we  may  test 
this  list  of  readings  by  transcriptional  and  intrinsic 
evidence,  and  thus  attain  a  very  good,  and  certainly 
a  well-grounded  notion  of  the  value  of  this  group. 
It  only  remains,  now,  to  return  to  the  reading  in 
hand,  and  allow  the  group  there  the  weight  which 
we  are  thus  led  to  assign  to  it.  We  no  longer  try 
to  estimate  the  weight  of  the  group  by  the  sum  of 
the  weights  of  its  component  parts;  we  no  longer 
need  to  raise  question  as  to  the  relative  values  of 
the  separate  MSS.,  and  the  effect  of  the  defection 
of  this  one  or  that;  we  treat  the  group  as  a  unit, 
and  estimate  its  value  as  a  whole.  Instead  of  specu- 
lating as  to  the  difference  between  5^  D  K  M  11 
17**  389  p«"-  and  B  x  D  K  M  H  17**  389  p«^ 
or  trying  to  calculate  it  by  adding  the  weight  of  B 
to  the  weight  of  the  former  group,  we  simply  go 
with  this  process  to  the  places  where  these  groups 
occur,  collect  the  readings  actually  supported  by  each, 
and  try  each  separately  by  the  only  kinds  of  evidence 
applicable,  and  so  find  for  each  in  turn  what  its 
actual  value  is.  The  result  is  oddly  portentous  for 
all  attempts  to  estimate  readings  by  arithmetical 
balances.  As  a  mere  matter  of  fact,  wherever 
N  D  K  M  n  17**  389  p«",  or  its  essential  elements, 
occur,  it  is  usually  in  support  of  an  obviously  wrong 
leading;  and  wherever  B  is  added,  this  greater  group 
usually    supports    an    obviously    right    reading.       In 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITIC  I  SAL       129 

other  words,  the  former  is  a  bad  and   the  latter  a 
good  group. 

Two  practical  limitations,  in  the  use  of  internal 
evidence  of  groups,  need,  statement  at  the  outset. 
In  estimating  the  value  of  any  group,  we  must 
confine  ourselves  within  the  limits  of  the  section 
of  the  New  Testament  in  which  the  reading  we  are 
to  study  occurs,  and,  in  the  first  instance  at  least, 
within  the  strict  limits  of  the  group  we  are  investi- 
gating. There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  our 
great  MSS.  which  contain,  or  once  contained,  the 
whole  New  Testament,  were  made  up  directly  or 
remotely  of  copies  of  difterent  codices  in  the  several 
parts  of  the  New  Testament;  and,  indeed,  that  in 
the  early  days  of  the  Church  each  section  was 
usually  written  in  a  volume  apart.  The  result  would 
naturally  be  that  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  say,  for  in- 
stance, in  Codex  B,  would  have  a  very  different 
history,  could  it  be  discovered,  from  that  of  the 
Gospels  in  the  same  codex.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
also,  the  result  of  the  actual  test  gives  a  different 
value  to  the  same  apparent  group  in  the  several 
sections.  Very  divergent  weights  are  assigned  by 
it  to  A  in  the  Gospels  and  in  the  rest  of  the  New 
Testament.  In  the  Gospel  of  Mark  B  A  is  excellent, 
but  B  G  in  Paul  is  very  suspicious.  Experience 
thus  teaches  us  that  the  value  of  the  separate  groups 
must  be  studied  apart  for  each  great  section  of  the 
New  Testament.  The  same  experience  teaches  that 
it  is  not  safe  to  confound  two  groups  which  look 
alike.  No  man  knows  whether  B  j^  D  L  has  the 
same  value  as,  or  more  or  less  value  than,  B  i^  D, 

9 


130  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

until  he  has  actually  tested  the  matter  empirically. 
We  may  afterwards  learn  from  actual  trial  the  limits 
within  which  each  group  may  vary  without  essen- 
tially altering  its  weight,  but  we  must  be  chary  of 
assumption  in  this  matter.  Take  the  group  D  E  F  G 
in  Paul.  If  we  add  5^  to  it  its  value  is  unaffected. 
Or  if  we  add  B  to  it,  it  is  essentially  the  same.  If, 
however,  we  add  both  ^  and  B,  the  group  immediately 
changes  from  bad  to  good. 

The  immense  advance  that  is  made,  by  the  intro- 
duction of  this  method,  on  all  criticism  that  depends 
on  estimating  the  values  of  groups  from  the  values 
of  the  members  that  compose  them,  is  apparent  at  a 
glance.  All  the  difficulties  and  dangers  of  an  arith- 
metical balance  are  escaped  at  a  single  step.  We 
now  estimate  the  weight  of  any  group  which  supports 
a  given  reading,  not  by  the  age  of  the  MSS.  which 
compose  it,  nor  by  the  age  of  the  texts  which  these 
MSS.  contain,  nor  by  the  value  of  the  separate  MSS., 
but  by  the  tested  value  of  the  group  itself.  Each 
group  stands  before  us  as  a  unit ;  each  is  first  tested 
as  a  unit,  and  then  used  as  a  unit.  The  full  im- 
portance of  thus  escaping  the  arithmetical  balance  will 
not  be  appreciated,  however,  until  we  realise  that  the 
union  of  two  codices  will  not  necessarily,  and  indeed 
is  sure  not  to,  be  the  same  in  weight  as  the  sum  of 
their  values.  For  example,  t<  B  is  not  the  same 
as  j<  +  B ;  and  any  system  which  proceeds  openly  or 
practically  by  an  arithmetical  balance  is  sure,  there- 
fore, to  lead  to  error,  which  cannot  be  legitimately 
escaped  until  we  learn  to  deal  with  groups  in  some 
way  or  other  as  units  of  testimony.     Internal  evi- 


TEE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       131 

dence  of  groups  assigns  to  N  B  no  weight  as  a  com- 
position of  t^  and  B,  but  recognises  it  as  a  third  thing 
(just  as  blue  2)lus  yellow  make  the  third  thing,  green), 
and  seeks  to  discover  its  own  value  as  it  betrays  it 
from  the  readings  it  supports ;  it  thus  accords  it  only 
the  weight  which  it  makes  good  its  claim  to. 

The  soundness  of  this  method  of  work  is  bound  up 
inseparably  with  that  of  internal  evidence  of  docu- 
ments, from  which  it  differs  rather  in  name  than  in 
fact.  It  does  for  groups  of  documents  just  what  the 
former  process  does  for  single  documents.  It  makes 
no  assumptions  as  to  how  documents  come  to  be 
grouped;  it  accepts  as  a  fact  that  here  is  a  circum- 
scribed group  supporting  a  series  of  readings,  and 
then  asks  what  kind  of  readings,  good  or  bad,  does 
this  group  support  %  It  thus  estimates  the  value  of 
a  witness  by  the  character  of  what  he  witnesses  to, 
— by  his  habits  of  truthfulness  or  the  contrary  else- 
where,— and  gives  him  credit  accordingly.  JSTo  less 
obvious  than  that  the  application  of  this  method  will 
give  us  secure  results  is  it,  however,  that  it  will 
entail  a  great  deal  of  labour.  It  is  far  easier  to 
guess  at  the  weight  of  a  group,  or  to  leave  it 
unsfuessed  and  fall  back  on  internal  evidence  of 
readings  as  our  sole  dependence,  than  laboriously  to 
test  the  weight  of  a  group.  The  beginner  may  well 
be  somewhat  appalled  at  the  prospect  of  painfully- 
tracing  every  chance  combination  of  documents 
through  the  crowded  digests  of  a  Tischendorf  or  a 
Tregelles,  and  even  after  this  labour  is  completed,  of 
feeling  that  the  most  trying  task  is  still  before  him, 
— the  careful  testing  of  each  one  of  the  readings  thus 


132  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

obtained  by  internal  evidence,  with  a  view  to  deter- 
mining the  vahie  of  the  witnessing  group.  Yet,  the 
result  is  worth  the  labour  :  royal  roads  have  not  a 
good  reputation  for  safety,  and  the  very  thorns  in 
this  path  have  their  useful  lessons  to  teach.  And 
it  is  right  to  point  out  that  the  number  of  groups 
needing  testing  is  found  in  practice  far  fewer  than 
would  a  prioi'i  be  thought  likely.  The  New  Testa- 
ment MSS.  do  not  arrange  themselves  in  every 
conceivable  grouping,  and  the  student  will  not  pro- 
ceed far  in  this  work  without  discovering  that  the 
number  of  varying  groups  that  actually  occur  is 
comparatively  small,  and  further,  that  these  may  be 
reduced  to  yet  fewer  by  attending  only  to  the 
essential  core  of  each, — a  core  that  can  only  be  em- 
pirically discovered,  but  which  yet,  after  a  while,  can 
be  with  certainty  abstracted. 

In  a  matter  of  this  kind  no  one  can  afford  to 
accept  implicitly  the  results  of  other  investigators  and 
simply  apply  them  to  special  cases.  It  is  strongly 
recommended  that  every  student  actually  study  for 
himself  the  value  of  some  few  selected  gi-oups  at  the 
very  outset,  and  that  he  be  prepared  to  test  all 
results  of  others  in  the  same  line  of  work,  and  to 
make  trial  of  any  group  that  puzzles  him  in  any 
special  reading.  At  the  same  time,  the  beginner 
may  be  allowed  to  stand  on  the  shoulders  of  the 
masters  of  the  science,  and  perceive  the  bearing  of 
evidence  through  their  eyes.  Dr.  Hort,  in  parti- 
cular, has  worked  out  the  values  of  the  chief  groups 
throughout  the  New  Testament,  and  his  results  may 
be  safely  accepted  as  sound.     The  most  interesting 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM,       133 

of  these  results  is  the  very  high  character  given  to 
the  compound  B  t?,  which  approves  itself  as  nearly 
always  right,  whether  it  stands  alone,  or  with  what- 
ever further  body  of  documents,  and  that  throughout 
the  New  Testament.  Next  to  B  j<,  B  conjoined  with 
some  other  primary  document,  such  as  B  L,  B  C,  B  T, 
and  the  like,  whether  alone  or  with  other  support, 
forms  the  most  weighty  series  of  groups,  and  this, 
again,  throughout  the  New  Testament.  The  only 
outstanding  exception  to  this  last  generalisation  is 
formed  by  B  G  in  Paul's  Epistles,  whether  alone  or 
with  other  documents  short  of  the  whole  body  of 
primary  uncials,  which  is  usually  condemned  by 
internal  evidence.  B  D  in  Paul  is  a  good  group, 
although  B  D  G  is  bad,  and  although  it  hardly  attains 
the  very  high  excellence  of  the  like  group  B  D  in 
the  Gospels  and  Acts,  whether  alone  or  in  combina- 
tion with  other  documents.  On  the  other  hand,  t<  D 
is  everywhere,  and  in  every  combination  (if  B  be 
absent),  very  suspicious.  Even  wdth  secondary  wit- 
nesses only  adjoined  to  it,  B  stands  the  test  excel- 
lently; and  if  clear  slips  of  its  scribe  be  excluded, 
even  when  w^holly  alone,  B  attains  great  excellence 
and  stands  forth  as  plainly  the  best  single  codex 
known.  On  the  other  hand,  compounds  of  ^{  with 
other  documents  (B  being  absent)  are  usually  not 
strongly  commended,  and  compounds  of  documents 
excluding  both  t?  and  B  are  commonly  condemned 
by  internal  evidence.  In  the  Apocalypse  K  falls  to 
a  low  level,  and  A  rises  to  the  height  of  the  best 
single  MS.,  while  A  C  is  the  best  binary  group,  and 
is  usually  to  be  trusted,  whether  it  stands  alone  or 


134  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

in  combination  with  other  documents.  A  very  special 
discredit  is  thrown  on  D  G  in  Paul's  Epistles,  whether 
it  stands  alone  or  in  any  combination,  provided  only 
that  both  B  and  5<  are  not  adjoined  to  it. 

These  generalisations,  all  of  ^^'hich  the  student 
would  do  well  to  test  by  actual  trial,  already  put  us 
in  a  position  to  deal  with  most  readings.  For  in- 
stance, in  John  vii.  8  internal  evidence  of  groups 
clearly  commends  oviroi  \  for  the  good  group  B  L  T  etc. 
supports  it,  while  the  bad  group  {<  D  etc.  supports 
its  opponent.  So  too  in  Matt.  vi.  4  the  group  that 
omits  kv  Tw  ^ai/epw — viz.,  B  5<  D  Z — is  seen,  at  a 
glance,  to  be  one  of  the  strongest  possible.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  group  that  omits  the  doxology 
in  the  Lord's  Prayer.  In  a  word,  internal  evidence 
of  groups  puts  an  engine  of  criticism  into  our  hands 
w^hich  cuts  the  knots  that  seemed  incapable  of  being 
unloosed  by  the  older  methods,  and  enables  us  to 
reach  assured  convictions  as  to  the  bearing  of  the 
external  evidence,  where  before  we  stood  helpless. 

If  in  any  case  Dr.  Hort's  generalisations  do  not 
seem  easily  or  safely  applicable,  or  the  results  of  their 
application  bring  us  to  a  conclusion  which  seems 
difficult  to  square  with  internal  evidence  of  readings, 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  inquirer  to  subject  the  special 
group  before  him  to  a  renewed  and  independent 
testing.  But  even  with  the  most  easily  studied  and 
safely  interpreted  groups,  it  must  be  remembered 
always  that  we  reach  general  and  probable  results 
only,  and  not  invariable  and  unmistakable  ones.  The 
character  assigned  thus  to  groups  of  MSS.,  like  the 
character  assigned  to   individual    MSS.    by  internal 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       135 

evidence  of  documents,  is  general  character,  and  is 
quite  consistent  with  the  best  groups  being  some- 
times in  error.  The  rules  of  procedure  derived  from 
internal  evidence  of  groups  are,  therefore,  not  with- 
out exceptions.  This  may  be  ilkistrated  by  such  a 
reading  as  that  found  in  Matt,  xxvii.  49.  Here 
^,  B,  C,  L,  U,  r,  five  minuscules,  some  mixed  Latin 
MSS.,  a  copy  of  the  Jerusalem  Syriac,  the  ^thiopic 
version,  and  Chrysostom,  with  perhaps  some  other 
fathers,  insert  the  sentence,  ''But  another,  taking  a 
spear,  pierced  His  side,  and  there  came  forth  water 
and  blood,"  to  the  confusion  of  the  narrative.  The 
intrinsic  evidence  seems  immovable  against  the  inser- 
tion ;  the  transcriptional  evidence  seems  to  judge  it 
an  assimilation  to  John  xix.  34,  clumsily  done.  But 
if  the  internal  evidence  is  thus  united  against  the 
insertion,  we  can  scarcely  insist  on  inserting  it  on 
account  of  the  testimony  of  internal  evidence  of 
groups.  Though  this  group  is  about  as  strong  a 
one  as  can  occur,  yet  internal  evidence  of  groups 
gives  us  only  the  comparative  weights  of  groups 
when  considered  throughout  all  their  readings ;  it 
does  not  give  us  an  exceptionless  rule  to  apply 
mechanically.  We  learn  from  it  what  amount  of 
correctness  ^}  B  C  L  U  T  is  apt  to  exhibit,  not 
what  amount  it  must  have  in  every  reading.  The 
w^ay  is  open  for  us  to  find  some  exceptions  to  the 
general  excellence  of  the  group,  and  henc3  to  find 
an  exception  here. 

If,  however,  the  estimation  of  the  value  of  the 
various  groups  wdiich  is  attained  by  internal  evidence 
of  groups  allows  for  exceptions,   and  attains  only  a 


136  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

probable  force,  it  becomes  immediately  important  to 
check  its  results  by  some  other  independent  method 
of  criticism,  which  will  enable  us  to  determine  which 
are  the  readings  in  which  the  exceptions  are  found. 
That  an  independent  method  lies  within  our  reach  may 
be  hinted  by  our  use  of  internal  evidence  of  gi'oups 
itself.  We  shall  not  proceed  far  in  using  this  method 
before  we  realise  what  has  been  already  remarked : 
that  the  number  of  groups  that  actually  occur  in 
the  digests  is  far  short  of  the  calculable  number 
of  possible  combinations  of  the  documents.  We  shall 
observe  a  certain  persistency  in  some  MSS.  in  getting 
together,  and  a  certain  persistency  in  keeping  apart 
manifested  by  others.  Nor  will  accident  account  for 
this.  It  is,  no  doubt,  possible  that  two  or  more 
MSS.  may  occasionally  unite  in  a  reading  by  accident. 
But  how  rarely  and  in  what  a  narrowly  limited  class 
of  readings  this  can  occur,  a  very  little  reflection 
will  assure  us.  Only  in  such  obvious  corrections  or 
in  such  unavoidable  corruptions  as  two  scribes  might 
independently  stumble  upon,  can  codices  agree  acci- 
dentally. The  improbability  of  many  MSS.  falling 
independently  into  an  identical  corruption  of  even 
this  kind,  and  the  still  greater  improbability  of  a 
plurality  of  MSS.  falling  independently  into  a  con- 
siderable series  of  identical  corruptions,  is  too  immense 
to  be  apprehended.  MSS.  which  fall  frequently  to- 
gether can  owe  their  frequent  conjunction  to  nothing 
else  than  common  inheritance.  This  is,  indeed,  the 
principle  on  which  all  textual  criticism  proceeds. 
We  seek  the  original  text  of  the  New  Testament  in 
the  extant  MSS.,  because  we  judge  that  where  these 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       137 

MSS.  agree,  this  agreement  can  be  accounted  for  in 
no  other  way  than  by  common  inheritance  from  the 
ancestor  of  all.  The  same  principle  is,  of  course, 
valid  for  any  given  group  of  MSS.  short  of  all :  their 
union  in  a  body  of  readings  common  to  them,  and 
more  or  less  confined  to  them,  is  proof  that  they  are 
preserving  in  these  readings  parts  of  a  MS.  which,  for 
these  parts,  lay  at  the  root  of  all  the  MSS.  in  the 
group.  When  we  gather  together  the  readings  of 
any  given  group  of  codices,  we  are  gathering,  there- 
fore, a  body  of  readings  from  a  lost  MS.,  the  common 
parent  in  these  readings  of  all  the  codices  of  this 
group.  And  when  w^e  test  this  list  of  readings  by 
internal  evidence  of  groups,  we  are  only  in  appear- 
ance performing  a  process  different  from  internal 
evidence  of  documents;  we  are  testing  a  lost  docu- 
ment, a  body  of  the  readings  of  which  we  have 
recovered,  instead  of  an  extant  document  all  of  the 
readings  of  which  are  before  us.  Internal  evidence 
of  groups  is,  therefore,  simply  internal  evidence  of 
documents  applied  to  lost  documents,  a  list  of  the 
readings  of  which  has  come  down  to  us,  and  nothing 
more.  This  is  why  we  have  said  that  its  validity  is 
bound  up  with  the  validity  of  internal  evidence  of 
documents,  and  must  stand  or  fall  with  it. 

From  this  point  of  view  we  may  understand  why 
we  find  it  in  practice  of  the  utmost  importance  to 
confine  the  examples  of  the  use  of  any  given  group 
which  we  are  testing,  strictly  within  the  bounds  of 
the  group  that  stands  before  us.  Every  MS.  added 
to  the  group  may  carry  us  another  step  back  for  the 
common   parent   of   the    (now^  enlarged)    group.     If 


138  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

B  C  D  in  Paul,  for  instance,  is  being  tested,  we 
must  exclude  all  readings  supported  by  X  B  C  D, 
because  we  do  not  know  whether  the  common 
ancestor  of  i<  B  C  D  may  not  be  another  MS.  from 
the  common  ancestor  of  B  C  D,  and  thus  we  may 
be  confusing  two  MSS.  in  our  investigation,  and 
therefore  obtaining  results  inapplicable  to  either. 
No  doubt  everything  in  j<  B  C  D  must  have  been 
in  the  MS.  which  stood  at  the  head  of  the  sub- 
group BCD;  otherwise  it  could  not  have  been 
inherited  by  B  and  C  and  D.  And  if  our  purpose 
were  to  recover  as  much  as  possible  of  the  common 
ancestor  of  B  C  D,  we  should  have  to  collect  all 
readings  found  in  these  three  MSS.,  no  matter  what 
others  were  added  to  them.  But  since  our  purpose 
is  to  test  the  value  of  this  reconstructed  MS.,  our 
first  duty  is  to  select  from  the  whole  mass  of  its 
readings  those  in  which  it  differs  from  the  opposing 
group,  just  as,  in  internal  evidence  of  documents,  we 
confined  our  attention  to  the  list  of  various  readings. 
To  pay  attention  to  all  the  readings  of  any  MS.  or 
group  of  MSS.  gives  us  no  basis  of  comparative 
judgment,  since  the  readings  common  to  both  docu- 
ments or  groups  cannot  discriminate  between  them. 
Consequently,  for  internal  evidence  of  groups  the 
labour  is  lost  which  is  spent  on  collecting  readings 
which  we  cannot  use,  for  the  sake  of  sifting  them 
out  again.  And  it  is  worse  than  lost.  Suppose 
we  are  testing  the  value  of  B.  Is  it  valid  to  take 
account  of  the  readings  for  which  B  x  witness? 
Certainly  not,  in  order  to  obtain  a  value  to  assign  to 
B  when  it  stands  alone.     And  simply  for  this  reason : 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       139 

B  j<  is  not  B,  but  the  common  ancestor  of  B  and  t? ; 
and  the  vahie  of  this  common  ancestor  of  the  two 
cannot  be  assigned  to  either  separately  without  lead- 
ing to  extensive  error.  No  doubt  B  has  preserved  in 
all  cases  where  B  and  j<  stand  together  the  reading 
of  the  common  ancestor  of  them  both.  But  this  does 
not  prove  that  it  has  preserved  it  also  where  B  and 
t;  differ  :  x  may  have,  then,  preserved  it  and  B  lost  it ; 
and  this  is  the  case  that  we  are  now  investigating. 
To  confuse  passages  in  which  B  s  stand  together 
with  those  in  w^hich  B  stands  alone,  is  to  lend  to  B 
everywhere  the  w^eight  that  belongs  to  it  only  when 
preserving  the  reading  of  the  common  ancestor  of  it 
and  x, — is  practically  to  deny  that  any  corruption 
has  entered  B  in  all  the  course  of  descent  from  the 
common  ancestor  of  it  and  5<  dow^n  to  the  writing  of 
the  MS.  itself.  Conversely,  to  attempt  to  estimate 
B  N  from  the  known  value  of  B  (as  is  done  by  all 
methods  of  criticism  that  treat  the  MSS.  separately 
only)  is  to  attribute  to  the  common  ancestor  of  B  t< 
all  the  change  that  has  entered  through  the  many 
possible  copyings  which  have  taken  place  in  the 
descent  from  it  to  B. 

How  empirical  the  foundations  of  this  method  of 
investigation  are  may  be  estimated  from  the  fact  that 
although,  as  just  explained,  the  addition  of  a  MS. 
to  a  group  may  make  every  difference  in  its  value, 
on  the  other  hand  experience  show\s  that  it  may  make 
no  difference  at  all.  This,  too,  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
MSS.  agree  together  not  by  accident  but  by  inherit- 
ance. Suppose  the  new  MS.  added  is  a  near  kinsman 
of  those  already  tested,  the  descendant  of  the  same 


140  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

common  immediate  ancestor  or  of  one  of  the  codices 
already  in  the  group.  Evidently,  in  such  a  case,  its 
presence  or  absence  will  make  no  difference  in  the 
results  of  our  testing  process.  For  instance,  we  know 
that  F  of  Paul  is  a  copy  of  G3.  Now,  if  we  are 
investigating  the  value  of  D  G  of  Paul,  it  is  obvious 
that  it  is  all  one  whether  we  allow  F  to  join  them 
or  not.  With  or  without  F  it  is  the  same  common 
exemplar  that  lies  at  the  base  of  the  group.  It 
follows  as  a  rule  of  procedure  that  we  must  take 
nothing  for  granted  in  using  this  process,  but  try 
all  things,  and  learn  the  effect  of  each  addition  only 
by  actual  testing. 

The  practice  of  internal  evidence  of  groups  is  thus 
wholly  independent  of  any  genealogical  considerations. 
It  proceeds,  and  must  proceed,  in  utter  ignorance  of 
all  genealogies.  It  tests  the  composite  value  of  every 
combination  of  documents  that  faces  it;  and  it  is 
all  one  to  it  whether  this  combination  is  one  which 
chance  has  thrown  together  or  which  inheritance  has 
compacted,  whether  it  unites  in  a  common  ancestor 
at  once  or  only  in  the  autograph  itself.  All  it  knows 
is,  Here  are  documents  united.  All  it  asks  is,  Do 
they  form  a  good  or  a  bad  combination  ?  *^et  behind 
internal  evidence  of  groups  the  student  will  see 
genealogies  clamouring  for  recognition.  He  notes 
the  peculiarities  of  the  groupings, — some  groups  fre- 
quently occurring,  others,  apparently  equally  possible, 
never  occurring  at  all.  He  notes  the  verdicts  of 
internal  evidence  of  groups, — some  groups  uniformly 
condemned,  others,  apparently  just  like  them,  almost  as 
uniformly  commended.     \Yhy  is  it  that  D,  the  African 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       141 

Latin,  and  the  Curetonian  Syriac,  stand  so  often  to- 
gether? Why  is  it  that  B  D  is  so  generally  good, 
and  X  D  so  generally  bad?  The  student  would  be 
something  other  than  human  if  he  did  not  wish  to 
know  the  cause  of  all  this.  And  the  hope  lies  close 
that  all  may  be  explained  and  a  new  and  powerful 
engine  of  criticism  be  put  into  our  hands  by  the 
investigation  of  the  genealogical  affiliations  of  the 
MSS.  which  are  suggested  by  these  facts.  The 
results  of  internal  evidence  of  groups  suggest  not 
only  the  study  of  genealogies,  but  also  certain  genea- 
logical facts  on  which  thab  study  may  be  begun. 
Every  one  must  suspect  that  MSS.  that  are  fre- 
quently in  company  are  close  of  kin.  Every  one  must 
suspect  that  the  groups  which  support  little  else  but 
corruptions  are  composed  of  the  remaining  representa- 
tives of  a  corrupt  stock.  Everybody  must  perceive 
that  if  such  hints  are  capable  of  being  followed  out, 
and  the  New  Testament  documents  arranged  in 
accordance  with  their  affiliations,  we  shall  have  a 
means  of  reaching  the  true  text  which  will  promise 
more  than  all  other  methods  combined. 

(c)  Genealogical  Evidence. 

These  hints  have  been  follow^ed  out  with  the  result 
of  developing  another  method  of  criticism,  which  may 
be  appropriately  called  "  The  Genealogical  Method." 
This  method  proceeds  by  examining  minutely  all  the 
documents  representing  a  text,  with  a  view  to  tracing 
out  the  resemblances  between  them  and  so  classify- 
ing them  in  smaller  and  larger  groups  according  to 
likeness.     It  assumes  only  the  self-evident  principle 


142  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM, 

that  community  in  readings  argues  community  of 
origin,  and  that,  therefore,  a  classification  of  docu- 
ments according  to  their  i-esemblances  is  a  classification 
of  them  according  to  origin.  If  this  be  true  of  all 
MSS.  taken  together,  so  that  we  can  group  all  New 
Testament  MSS.,  for  instance,  together  as  MSS.  of 
the  New  Testament  by  virtue  of  their  community  in 
the  general  text  of  the  New  Testament,  it  is,  of  course, 
true  of  the  minor  resemblances  also,  and  we  can 
equally  safely  group  the  MSS.  into  numerous  sub- 
groups, each  characterised  by  their  special  readings, 
and  each,  therefore,  forming  a  family  sprung  from 
a  common  more  proximate  origin.  Community  in 
erroneous  readings  is  as  sure  a  test  of  relationship  as 
community  in  correct  ones  :  the  point  is  not  the  kinds 
of  readings  that  are  involved,  but  the  communion 
in  them.  Each  MS.  on  becoming  parent  of  others 
impresses  its  actual  characteristics  on  its  progeny, 
whether  these  characteristics  be  excellences  or  de- 
pravities; and  we  may,  therefore,  select  from  the 
mass  of  MSS.  the  progeny  of  each  parent,  by  select- 
ing those  MSS.  possessing  the  same  characterising 
peculiarities.  The  labour  involved  in  this  method 
of  criticism,  again,  is  no  doubt  very  great.  Every 
document  has  to  be  examined  minutely,  and  compared 
with  every  other  one.  Those  most  alike  are  to  be 
put  together  into  small  groups  of  close  kinsmen ; 
these  small  groups  are  then  to  be  compared,  and 
those  closest  to  one  another  put  together  as  con- 
stituting a  higher  and  more  inclusive  group ;  these 
higher  groups  are  then  in  like  manner  to  be  compared 
and  grouped  into  yet  higher  groups ;   and  so  on,  until 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       143 

we  reach  a  point  at  which  they  all  unite  in  one 
great  group,  inckisive  of  all  the  extant  MSS.  of 
the  work,  with  the  oldest  transmitted  text  as  their 
common  source.  The  result  of  the  labour  is,  however, 
here  too,  worth  the  expenditure.  Its  effect  is  to 
arrange  all  the  witnesses  in  the  form  of  a  genealogical 
tree,  and  so  to  enable  us  to  see  at  a  glance  the 
relative  originality  of  the  witness  of  each, — to  sift 
out  those  combinations  of  documents  which  must 
represent  only  a  lately  originated  corruption,  and  to 
trace  out  the  combinations  which  will  take  us  back 
to  the  original  of  all. 

All  this  will  most  easily  be  made  clear  by  a 
concrete  example.  Mr.  E-obinson  Ellis  finds  that  the 
MSS,  of  Catullus  so  class  themselves  as  to  admit  of 
a  genealogical  arrangement  which,  with  a  little  com- 
pression, we  may  represent  thus  : — 

Autograph. 

r ^ n 

A  [B] 


\k  [b] 

I 1 i—H 1 1  I : 1 

123      4      5G  789 


In  this  special  instance,  B,  a,  and  b,  are  lost ;  but 
let  us  suppose  for  the  moment  that  all  the  MSS. 
marked  on  the  plan  are  still  in  our  hands.  We 
should,  then,  have  thirteen  MSS.  : — A,  B,  a,  b, 
1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9.  Should  each  of  these  be 
allowed  the  same  weight  %  Clearly  B  and  9,  say 
for  instance,  stand  in  very  different  relations  to  the 
autograph,   and,    when   the   two  differ,  it  would  be 


144  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

manifestly  unfair  to  allow  to  9  equal  weight  with  B. 
We  can  even  go  further :  there  is  nothing  legiti- 
mately in  9  which  was  not  already  in  B,  and  if  9 
differs  from  B,  it  does  so  only  by  error,  and  is 
worthless.  There  is  absolutely  nothing  legitimately 
in  any  of  the  codices  1 — 6  which  is  not  already  in 
a,  or  in  the  codices  7 — 9  which  is  not  already  in  b, 
or  in  the  whole  array  a,  b,  1 — 9,  which  is  not  already 
in  B.  If,  then,  B  is  extant,  all  its  descendants  are 
useless  to  us ;  when  they  agree  with  B  they  are 
mere  repeaters  of  testimony  already  in  hand,  and 
when  they  differ  from  B  they  are  introducers  of  new 
error,  and  in  both  cases  they  must  be  absolutely 
neglected  as  useless  and  confusing.  That  B  has  two 
children  (a,  b)  and  nine  grandchildren  (1 — 9)  stand- 
ing by  its  side,  while  A  stands  alone,  is  at  best  an 
accident ;  and  it  is  clearly  unfair,  on  account  of  this 
accident  in  copying  or  in  the  preservation  of  copies, 
to  allow  B  twelve  repeating  votes  to  A's  single  voice. 
It  is  obvious  rather  that  the  whole  group  B  a  b  1 — 9 
constitutes  but  one  witness  though  they  count  up 
twelve  codices,  and  that  A  by  itself  in  point  of 
originality  balances  the  whole  array.  At  one  sweep, 
therefore,  we  lay  aside  all  the  codices  a,  b,  1 — 9, 
with  all  their  various  readings,  and  are  enabled  to 
confine  our  sole  attention  to  A  and  B — the  only  two 
independent  witnesses  we  have.  This  is  an  imaginary 
result  in  our  present  schedule,  but  in  the  codices  of 
Cicero's  ''  Orator,"  as  worked  out  by  Dr.  ITeerdegen, 
it  actually  occurs :  one  whole  rather  numerous  class 
of  codices  (the  codices  mutili,  as  they  are  called), 
arc  swept  for  ciitical  purposes  into  the  waste-basket 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM,       145 

at  once,  because  the  source  of  them  all,  Codex  Ahrin- 
censis,  is  still  extant  and  in  critical  use. 

Let  us,  however,  come  back  nearer  to  the  facts  of 
our  present  case.  B,  a,  and  b,  are  lost,  and  we  have 
just  ten  codices,  we  shall  say — A,  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9. 
How  is  the  matter  affected?  If,  before,  B,  a,  b, 
1 — 9,  twelve  codices,  constituted  but  one  witness, 
surely  1 — 9,  nine  of  the  same  codices,  have  not  become 
more  than  one  witness  by  the  destruction  of  three 
of  their  companions.  This  were  to  emulate  the 
Sibyl  and  estimate  value  in  inverse  proportion  to 
number.  ISTo  more,  then,  in  this  case  than  in  the  pre- 
ceding, can  w^e  allow  equal  weight  to  each  codex — to 
A,  say,  and  to  9.  Plainly  1 — 9  are  here  combined, 
but  one  witness  still,  and  must  be  counted  as  but 
one  in  opposition  to  A,  which  in  point  of  originality 
is  still  able  by  itself  to  balance  the  whole  array 
1 — 9.  Now,  how^ever,  we  are  not  able  to  neglect 
these  codices;  they  are  our  only  extant  representa- 
tives of  B,  and  taken  together  constitute  B.  But 
we  must  not  treat  them  as  nine  separate  witnesses, 
or  even,  because  they  obviously  form  two  groups, 
1 — 6  and  7 — 9,  as  two  separate  witnesses.  We 
must  treat  them  as  together  constituting  only  one 
witness,  and  we  must  so  marshal  their  testimony 
as  to  eliminate  the  errors  that  have  been  introduced 
into  them  since  B,  before  we  match  them  against  A. 
In  other  words,  we  must  reconstruct  B  from  them, 
and  only  then  seek  from  A  and  recovered  B  their 
common  original,  the  autograph.  The  effect  of  the 
classification  on  these  ten  codices.  A,  1 — 9,  is,  there- 
fore,  to  reduce  the  ten  apparent  witnesses  to   two, 

10 


146  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM. 

— to  eliminate  the  large  body  of  variants  that  exist 
among  1 — 6,  or  7 — 9,  as  too  lately  introduced  to 
merit  our  notice, — and  so  in  a  great  number  of 
places  to  fix  the  text  absolutely. 

Thus  far  we  have  proceeded  as  if  the  ten  codices 
were  found  already  classified  to  our  hand.  Let  us 
suppose,  now,  that  they  are  simply  handed  to  us  as 
ten  codices.  Are  we  justified  in  assuming  that  each 
is  independent  of  all  the  rest,  and  so  beginning  our 
textual  criticism  with  an  apparatus  of  ten  witnesses  ? 
Certainly  not.  The  fact  that  we  receive  them  un- 
classified does  not  alter  the  fact  that  they  actually 
bear  such  relationship  to  each  other  as  is  expressed 
in  this  classification.  We  must  begin  by  a  close 
examination  of  the  codices  with  a  view  to  tracing 
their  affiliations.  And,  so  beginning,  we  should  note, 
first,  that  codices  1 — 6  are  very  closely  alike,  and 
that  7 — 9  draw  likewise  close  together,  leaving  A 
standing  apart;  and  then,  secondly,  that  the  group 
1 — 6  is  much  more  closely  related  to  the  group 
7 — 9  than  either  is  to  A,  and  that  the  two  groups 
contain  even  obvious  errors  (not  found  in  A)  in 
common.  Whence  it  will  be  clear  that  while  1 — 6 
come  from  a  different  proximate  ancestor  from  that 
of  7 — 9,  yet  the  groups  unite  in  an  ultimate  common 
ancestor  which  is  co-ordinate  with  A.  This  reached, 
the  classification  is  complete,  and  we  may  proceed 
with  our  criticism  of  the  text. 

If  we  may  assume  that  the  validity  and  importance 
of  the  genealogical  method  has  been  thus  made 
apparent,  we  may  next  investigate  this  process  of 
criticism  in  its  use.    We  have  arranged  our  ten  MSS., 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       147 

A,  1 — 9,  in  their  genealogical  relations.  What  have 
we  gained  as  an  instrument  for  settling  the  text  % 
First  of  all  we  are  enabled  to  attack  our  problem  in 
detail.  It  is  easier  to  reconstruct  B  from  1 — 9,  and 
then  the  autograph  from  A  and  B,  than  it  is  to 
reconstruct  the  autograph  from  A,  1 — 9,  directly. 
But,  far  above  this,  the  classification  of  the  codices 
actually  gives  us  an  instrument  of  criticism  that 
settles  much  of  the  text  of  B,  or  even  of  the  auto- 
graph, for  us  at  a  glance.  For  example,  if  one  reading- 
is  supported  by  1,7,  8,  9,  while  2,  3,  4,  5,  6  each  give 
a  divergent  reading,  it  is  clear  beyond  a  peradven- 
ture  that  the  first  stood  in  B.  For  this  combina- 
tion of  documents,  1  +  7,  8,  9,  cannot  occur  unless 
1  inherits  from  a,  and  7,  8,  9  from  b,  exactly  the  same 
reading,  which,  because  in  both  a  and  b,  must  also 
have  been  in  B.  Again,  if  1,2,  3,  4,  5,  6  present  one 
reading,  7  another,  and  A,  8,  9  another,  this  last 
with  absolute  certainty  must  have  stood  in  B  and 
in  the  autograph.  For  8,  9  cannot  agree  with  A 
except  by  having  inherited  this  reading  from  their 
common  ancestor,  and  this  involves  its  presence 
throughout  the  whole  line  of  descent — i.e.,  in  b  and 
in  B  j  it  was,  therefore,  the  reading  of  both  A  and 
B  and  of  their  common  ancestor,  the  autograph. 
In  cases  of  simple  genealogy,  therefore,  the  rule  is 
obvious  and  exceptionless  (in  all  such  cases  as  cannot 
be  accounted  for  as  merely  accidental  conjunctions) 
that  attestations  including  documents  from  two 
groups  demonstrate  the  presence  of  the  reading  so 
attested  in  the  common  parent  of  these  groups.  All 
readings  supported  by  A  and  any  descendant  of  B 


148  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

(accidents  excluded)  were  consequently  in  the  auto- 
graph ;  all  supported  by  any  descendant  of  a  and 
any  descendant  of  b  in  common  (accidents  excluded) 
were  in  B.  So  far  our  results  are  certain.  When 
A  and  restored  B  agree,  the  reading  is,  of  course? 
that  of  the  autograph.  When  they  differ,  in  a  case 
like  the  present,  where  we  have  but  two  primary 
witnesses,  we  are  thrown  back  on  the  character  of 
the  witnesses  to  determine  the  probability  of  recti- 
tude between  them.  Hence,  we  call  in  "  internal 
evidence  of  classes,"  as  we  shall  call  it,  to  distinguish 
it  from  the  same  process  when  dealing  with  chance 
groups,  instead  of,  as  here,  genealogically  determined 
ones.  In  other  words,  we  collect  the  various  readings 
between  A  and  the  group  1 — 9  considered  as  a  unit, 
and  that  is  as  much  as  to  say  B,  and  try  the  relative 
value  of  the  two  by  internal  evidence,  just  as  we 
did  in  the  kindred  processes  of  internal  evidence 
of  documents  and  internal  evidence  of  groups.  The 
class  which  supports  the  greater  proportion  of 
approved  readings  is  the  better  class.  Had  we  three 
prioary  classes  instead  of  two,  this  process  would 
need  calling  in  only  in  cases  of  ternary  variation ; 
whenever  there  were  two  classes  arrayed  against  one, 
the  reading  would  be  settled  on  purely  genealogical 
grounds. 

The  essence  of  this  whole  procedure  may  be  reduced 
to  two  simple  rules:  (1)  Fii'st,  work  out  a  complete 
classification  of  the  witnesses  to  any  text  by  means 
of  a  close  study  of  their  affiliations,  and  thus  deter- 
mine how  many  independent  witnesses  there  are; 
and   (2)  Then   by  internal  evidence  of  classes  deter- 


THE   METHODS  OF  CPdTICISM,      149 

mine  the  relative  value  of  these  several  independent 
classes.  When  these  two  processes  are  completed 
we  have  a  method  of  criticism  available  which  will, 
in  all  cases  of  simple  and  unmixed  genealogies,  carry 
us  with  the  greatest  certainty  attainable  to  the  text 
that  lies  behind  all  extant  witnesses. 

The  limitation  "  in  all  cases  of  simple  and  unmixed 
genealogies  "  was  not  unintentionally  introduced  into 
the  last  clause.  Normally  we  may  expect  each  docu- 
ment to  be  made  simply  and  without  intentional 
alteration  from  a  single  pre-existent  document  ]  and 
when  this  has  been  the  actual  course  that  has  been 
taken,  all  documents,  each  having  a  single  parent, 
arrange  themselves  'in  a  simple  genealogy.  It  is 
possible,  however,  that  a  given  document  may  not 
be  thus  simply  copied  from  a  single  exemplar,  but 
may  have  two  or  more  parents.  The  scribe  may 
place  two  copies  (which  may  as  well  as  not  be  of 
different  types)  before  him,  and  make  his  new  copy 
by  following  now  one,  now  the  other,  either  capri- 
ciously or  with  a  conscious  effort  to  act  as  editor. 
Or  again,  a  scribe  accustomed  to  a  strongly  marked 
type  of  text,  when  called  upon  to  copy  a  codex  of 
another  type,  may  consciously  or  unconsciously  allow 
his  teeming  memory  to  introduce  into  the  new  copy 
readings  drawn  not  from  the  exemplar  before  him, 
but  from  the  type  of  text  to  which  he  has  been 
long  accustomed.  The  result,  in  either  case,  is  a 
document  which  is  not  a  simple  copy  of  a  single 
exemplar,  but  which  rather  will  be  more  or  less 
intermediate  between  two  types,  and  will  therefore 
refuse  to  take  its  place  in  any  scheme  of  simple  or 


150  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

unmixed  genealogies.  There  is  yet  a  third  way  in 
which  this  ''  mixture,"  as  it  is  technically  called,  is 
introduced  into  texts,  and  this  is  doubtless  the  way 
by  which,  in  actual  fact,  most  mixed  texts  have  been 
formed.  The  student  will  remember  that  it  was 
customary  of  old  time,  more  or  less  completely,  but 
usually  very  incompletely,  to  correct  codices  in  the 
text  or  margin  by  other  codices  with  which  the 
owner  chanced  to  become  acquainted.  All  of  our 
great  codices  have  been  so  corrected,  and  often  the 
process  has  been  repeated  several  times.  Thus  we 
distinguish  between  ^?,  ^%  ^,  and  between  B,  B^,  B^, 
etc.  ISTow,  suppose  a  codex  which  has  been  thus 
corrected  by  a  divergent  type  of  text  to  be  used  as 
copy  for  the  production  of  other  codices.  The  scribe 
does  not  know  what  corrections  are  merely  mar- 
ginal readings  and  what  are  really  corrections ;  he 
inevitably  adopts  some  or  perhaps  all  of  them  into 
his  text  as  he  writes  it  out.  And  the  result  is  a 
*' mixed  text,"  having  for  its  parents  the  original 
codex  and  all  the  divergent  codices,  readings  from 
which  had  been  written  on  the  margin.  A  very 
interesting  example  of  such  a  mixed  text  is  furnished 
in  Codex  E  of  Paul, — Codex  Sangermanensis.  This 
MS.  is  recognisably  a  copy  of  the  Codex  Claromon- 
tanus  (D^),  but  it  does  not  give  the  original  text  of 
D,  but  that  text  as  corrected  by  the  several  hands 
which  had  diligently  ornamented  its  margin  with 
readings  from  other  codices.  The  result  is  that  E 
is  a  mixed  text.  Of  course,  if  the  corrections  had 
all  been  taken  from  a  single  simple  codex,  and  the 
correcting  had  been  thoroughly  done,  and  the  scribe 


THE  MET  HOB  ^   OF  CRITICISM,      151 

in  copying  from  the  MS.  had  noted  and  adopted  them 
all,  the  result  would  not  have  been  a  mixed  text,  but 
a  text  of  the  type  of  the  document  to  which  the 
original  had  been  conformed.  But  this  completeness 
is  not  to  be  expected,  and  the  result  is,  therefore, 
always  a  more  or  less  mixed  text. 

Now,  it  is  obvious  that  the  effect  of  mixture  is  to 
confuse  genealogies.  Wherever  it  has  entered,  and  in 
the  proportion  in  which  it  has  entered,  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  documents  in  their  true  genealogical 
relations  is  rendered  difficult,  as  also  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  evidence,  after  it  has  been  arranged.  The 
detection  of  the  fact  of  mixture  is  generally,  however, 
easy,  and  when  it  is  once  detected  it  can  be  allowed 
for ;  so  that  it  will  only  force  us  to  apply  genealogical 
evidence  with  more  care  and  discrimination,  rather 
than  render  it  inapplicable.  Suppose,  for  instance, 
that  in  undertaking  to  determine  the  mutual  relations 
of  a  body  of  five  witnessing  documents,  we  find  that 
they  separate  easily  into  two  pairs,  each  a  representa- 
tive of  a  marked  type  of  text,  while  the  fifth  witness 
is  intermediate  between  the  pairs.  Whether  this 
intermediate  position  is  due  to  mixture  or  not  is 
usually  possible  to  determine  by  the  character  either 
of  the  intermediate  readings  themselves  or  of  the 
whole  mass  of  readings  furnished  by  the  intermediate 
witness.  If  any  of  the  readings  are  themselves  com- 
posite readings,  uniting  the  readings  characteristic 
of  the  other  types — "  conflate  readings  "  as  they  are 
called — and  especially  if  many  such  readings  occur, 
mixture  may  be  assumed  to  be  proved.  If,  again,  in 
looking  over  the  whole  mass  of  its  readings  we  find 


152  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

the  intermediate  witness  to  follow  arbitrarily  first 
one  and  then  the  other  of  the  two  pairs  in  their 
obvious  errors,  and  especially  if  this  is  true  of  the 
obvious  errors  of  a  separate  document  from  each 
(or  either)  pair,  while  its  own  obvious  errors  can  be 
traced  back  by  transcriptional  evidence  with  equal 
arbitrariness  now  to  the  one  and  now  to  the  other, 
mixture  again  may  be  assumed.  The  fact  of  mixture 
having  been  thus  determined,  it  may  be  allowed 
for,  and  the  elements  in  the  witness  under  investi- 
gation be  separated  and  placed  in  the  genealogy 
accordingly. 

Some  such  state  of  things  as  we  have  thus  assumed 
seems  actually  to  occur  in  the  witnessing  documents 
to  the  "Two  Ways,"  or  first  section  of  "The  Teaching 
of  the  Apostles,"  the  scheme  of  which  is  apparently 
as  follows  : — 

Okigtnal  Text. 
[Al  [Bl 


r ^ n  r ^ 

a  b  [c] 

1  2  =r  [d] 

3. 

Here  the  extant  witnesses  are  a,  b,  forming  one  pair, 
and  1,  2,  forming  another,  together  with  3,  which 
proves  to  be  a  descendant  of  a  lost  d  mixed  with  2. 
A  glance  at  the  table  will  show  the  effect  of  the 
mixture.  Without  it,  the  combination  2  3  would 
necessarily  determine  both  what  was  in  c  and  d,  and 
hence  what  was  in  B.  But  owing  to  mixture  of  3 
from  2,  the  combination  2  3  may  be  only  a  corrupt 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.      153 

reading  peculiar  to  2 ;  and  1  may  preserve  the  true 
reading  of  c,  while  the  reading  of  B  may  be  that 
of  c  now  extant  in  1,  or  the  lost  one  which  stood 
in  d  before  mixture  with  2  displaced  it  from  its 
descendant  3.  So,  again,  without  mixture,  such  a 
combination  as  b  1  against  2  3  would  have  been 
impossible.  For  b  and  1  could  not  agree  (accidents 
apart),  unless  this  reading  had  been  inherited  from 
their  common  ancestor,  and  this  would  imply  its 
presence  in  all  the  links  between  that  ancestor  and 
each  document — i.e.,  in  A  and  in  B  and  in  c.  But, 
again,  2  and  3  could  not  agree  unless  in  like  manner 
that  reading  stood  in  every  link  between  each  and 
their  common  ancestor — i.e.,  in  d,  c,  and  B.  Thus 
both  readings  w^ould  have  to  stand  in  B  and  in  c  as 
well  to  allow  this  division  of  evidence.  With  the 
mixture,  however,  this  combination  is  very  possible ; 
for  though  b  1  implies  that  the  reading  so  supported 
stood  in  c  and  B,  2  3  need  not  imply  anything 
beyond  the  presence  of  its  reading  in  2  itself,  whence 
it  may  have  been  borrowed  by  3.  A  division  or 
attestation  of  this  kind  is  called  a  ''  cross  attestation," 
and  "  cross  attestations  "  are  among  the  surest  proofs 
that  mixture  has  taken  place.  Go  back  to  the  dia- 
gram from  Catullus,  for  instance.  If  we  find  A,  1,  2, 
3, 4, 5  supporting  one  reading,  and  6,  7,  8,  9  another  ;  or 
A,  8,  9  one,  and  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7  another ;  or  1,  2,  3,  4, 
5,  7  one,  and  6,  8,  9  another,  —  we  may  be  certain 
(accidents  being  excluded)  that  mixture  has  taken 
place.  For  each  of  these  divisions  is  such  as  cannot 
occur  in  a  simple  genealogy,  inasmuch  as  it  springs 
across  from  one  group  to  another,   and  hence   pre- 


154  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM, 

supposes  that  its  reading   was   in   the  parent  docu- 
ments. 

The  effect  of  mixture,  then,  on  genealogical  evidence 
is  to  limit  the  sphere  of  its  application.  Thus,  in  our 
present  illustration,  we  no  longer  know  at  sight  what 
2  3  means.  It  may  be  c  +  d,  and  hence  carry  us  back 
to  B,  or  it  may  be  only  2  +  2,  and  so  leave  us 
at  2.  Even  12  3  may  be  nothing  but  a  corruption 
introduced  by  c.  In  all  cases  in  which  A  and  B 
differed,  1  3  is  the  only  combination  that  we  can 
be  sure  will  take  us  back  to  B.  But  mixture  does 
not  affect  the  validity  of  genealogical  evidence  wher- 
ever it  can  be  applied.  Thus,  again,  in  our  present 
illustration,  a  (or  b)  1,  or  a  (or  b)  2,  or  a  (or  b)  3,  all 
alike  carry  us  back  to  the  common  original  of  all 
our  witnesses  despite  the  mixture  of  3  from  2,  and 
in  general  every  combination  of  a  or  b  with  a  descend- 
ant of  B  still  settles  the  original  text  with  certainty. 
We  gain  somewhat  fewer  results  from  genealogy  than 
we  should  have  attained,  had  there  been  no  mixture ; 
but  what  we  do  gain  are  equally  sound  in  this  case 
as  in  that.  The  actual  instance  of  mixture  which  we 
have  been  studying  is  no  doubt  a  very  uncomplicated 
one.  It  sufficiently  illustrates,  nevertheless,  its  effect, 
its  dangers  and  its  difficulties ;  and  the  most  compli- 
cated case  imaginable  would  differ  from  it  only  in 
degree.  The  one  principle  that  unties,  as  far  as  may 
be,  all  the  knotty  problems  that  mixture  sets  for  us, 
is  that  mixture  acts  simply  like  marriage  in  real 
genealogies,  and  we  must  allow  the  possibility  of  each 
combination  of  documents,  into  which  it  enters, 
meaning  as  many  diverse  things  as  there  are  diverse 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.      155 

ways  of  tracing  up  their  inheritance  to  a  common 
original.  Thus,  the  common  original  of  2  3  may  be 
found  at  2,  or  if  it  is  the  other  element  of  3  that  here 
unites  with  2,  not  until  we  reach  B. 

As  mixture  operates  in  a  directly  opposite  direction 
to  pure  genealogy, — tending  to  bring  together  whereas 
it  tends  to  separate  the  texts,  to  compress  all  lines  of 
descent  into  one  composite  line  whereas  it  broadens 
them  out  more  and  more,  like  a  fan, — it  is  not  strange 
that  it  introduces  some  paradoxes  into  criticism.  One 
of  these  it  is  worth  while  to  call  attention  to.  Where 
mixture  has  been  at  w^ork,  it  is  often  discovered  that 
a  group  is  weakened  instead  of  strengthened  by  the 
addition  of  other  witnesses.  For  example,  in  our 
illustration,  1  3  is  a  strong  group ;  its  readings  must 
take  us  back  at  least  to  B,  the  common  original  of 
this  whole  class.  Add  2  to  this  group  and  at  once  its 
value  is  lowered.  For  1  3  (2  dissenting)  must  be  a 
combination  of  1  descended  from  c  and  of  3  in  that 
part  of  it  which  descends  from  d,  inasmuch  as  the 
dissent  of  2  proves  that  this  is  not  the  part  of  3  that 
comes  from  2.  But  1  2  3  is  a  combination  of  1  and 
2  descended  from  c  and  3  in  a  part  that  may  well 
have  been  borrowed  from  2,  and  hence  which  also  may 
descend  from  c.  Hencs,  while  1  3  must  be  at  least  B, 
the  larger  group  12  3  may  mean  only  c,  and  is 
therefore  a  weaker  group.  Analogous  findings  crop 
out  in  the  New  Testament.  For  example,  internal 
evidence  of  groups  proves  that  B  D  in  Paul  is  a 
better  group  than  B  D  G,  or  than  B  D  G  +  most 
uncials  and  most  minuscules.  Again,  ^^  A  C  in  Paul 
is  a  better  group  than  x  A  0  D  G.     The  explanation 


156  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

of  it  lies  in  this  :  some  mixture  has  taken  place  that 
makes  B  D  analogous  to  1  3  in  our  diagram  and 
B  D  G  analogous  to  1  2  3. 

The  application  of  genealogical  evidence  to  the  New 
Testament  has  proved  to  be  exceptionally  difficult. 
Not  only  has  the  critic  to  face  here  an  unheard-of 
abundance  of  matter,  all  of  which  has  to  be  sifted  and 
classified ;  but  the  problem  is  complicated  by  an  un- 
paralleled amount  of  mixture,  which  has  reigned  so 
universally  that  it  has  left  scarcely  a  half-dozen  wit- 
nesses entirely  unafiected  by  it.  The  task  of  working 
out  the  genealogy  of  the  New  Testament  MSS.  has^ 
therefore,  been  the  labour  not  of  one  man,  nor  of  one 
age,  but  of  a  succession  of  generations.  The  first 
dim  signs  of  classification  were  mistily  seen  by  Mill 
(1707)  and  Bentley  (1720);  the  genius  and  diligence 
of  Bengel  (1734)  and  Griesbach  (1775—1811)  drew 
the  lines  of  division  with  some  sharpness ;  and  Dr. 
Hort,  in  our  own  day,  has  at  last  so  far  perfected 
the  details  that  this  method  of  criticism  can  now  be 
safely  used  for  the  settlement  of  much  of  the  New 
Testament  text.  The  multifarious  abundance  of 
mixture  in  our  witnesses  complicates  and  limits  the 
use  of  genealogy  sadly ;  but,  as  elsewhere,  leaves  the 
soundness  of  its  results  unaffected  wherever  it  can  be 
applied.  Genealogy,  thus,  does  less  for  us  in  the  New 
Testament  than  could  have  been  hoped,  but  it  does 
much  for  us  nevertheless.  In  particular,  the  results 
attained  by  it  so  fully  explain  those  reached  by 
internal  evidence  of  groups,  which  it  is  to  be  remem- 
bered is  an  entirely  independent  process,  and  those 
attained  by  that  process  so  fully    accord  with  those 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.      157 

attained  by  this,  that  the  two  methods  actually  prove 
the  soundness  of  each  other,  and  place  the  text 
obtained  by  both  combined  in  a  very  unassailable 
position. 

It  does  not  fall  within  the  plan  of  this  primary 
treatise  to  enter  fully  into  the  details  or  the  justifica- 
tion of  the  genealogy  which  Dr.  Hort  has  worked 
out  for  the  New  Testament  witnesses.  For  this  the 
student  must  be  referred  to  the  full  exposition  and 
proof  which  Dr.  Hort  has  himself  given  in  his  epoch- 
making  ''  Introduction "  to  the  Greek  Testament, 
which  was  published  by  Dr.  Westcott  and  himself  in 
1881.  Here,  it  must  suffice  to  set  forth  only  so  much 
as  will  enable  the  beginner  to  make  intelligent  use  of 
the  method. 

At  the  root  of  all  genealogical  investigation  lies 
the  classification  of  the  documents  according  to  their 
affinities ;  and  Dr.  Hort  has  shown  that  the  docu- 
ments representing  the  text  of  the  New  Testament 
part  into  four  great  and  well-marked  classes,  which 
he  would  somewhat  conventionally  designate  the 
Syrian,  Western,  Alexandrian,  and  Neutral.  Next 
the  difficult  problem  of  the  relation  in  which  the 
several  classes  stand  to  one  another  is  unravelled. 
And  here,  first,  it  has  been  show^n  that  the  Syrian 
class  is  not  an  independent  witness  to  the  text  of  the 
New  Testament,  but  is  rather  the  result  of  a  critical 
editing  of  the  New  Testament  text  which  was  accom- 
plished  probably  in  Syria  at  some  time  not  earlier 
than  the  last  half  of  the  third  century.  The  evidence 
that  proves  this  is  of  three  kinds.  First,  the  distinc- 
tive readings  of   the  Syrian  text,  although  common 


158  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

in  the  later  fourth  centurj'-  and  all  subsequent  fathers, 
cannot  be  traced  in  ante-Nicene  patristic  quotations ; 
so  that,  journeying  backwards  in  time,  the  favourite 
text  of  Chrysostom  and  his  age  has  disappeared  entirely 
from  use  by  the  time  we  reach  Origen.  Secondly,  the 
distinctively  Syrian  readings,  when  tried  by  internal 
evidence,  betray  themselves  as  inferior  to,  and,  when 
tried  by  transcriptional  evidence,  as  derived  from,  those 
of  the  other  classes.  And,  thirdly,  this  culminates  in 
the  presence  among  the  Syrian  readings  of  a  body  of 
"conflate  readings,"  the  simple  elements  of  which 
occur  in  the  other  classes,  so  that  it  is  certain  that 
in  some  of  its  parts  this  text  was  made  out  of  the 
Neutral  and  Alexandrian,  or  the  Neutral  and 
Western,  or  the  Alexandrian  and  Western.  When 
all  the  phenomena  are  closely  scrutinised,  it  is  made 
out  positively  that  the  Syrian  text  was  made  by  a 
revision  out  of  the  other  three  classes,  and  preserves 
nothing  from  antiquity  not  already  in  them.  In  the 
presence  of  the  other  three  classes  its  testimony  is, 
therefore,  collusive  testimony,  and  is  simply  to  be 
neglected.  The  case  with  reference  to  it  is  precisely 
similar  to  that  with  reference  to  the  codices  mutili  of 
Cicero's  "  Orator,"  or  the  printed  editions  of  the  New 
Testament.  We  should  have  much  the  same  w^arrant 
for  introducing  Westcott  and  Hort's  Greek  Testa- 
ment among  our  witnesses  that  we  have  for  introducing 
the  Syrian  text ;  in  both  cases  the  valuelessness  of  the 
text  as  a  witness-bearer  depends  on  the  fact  that  it 
represents  not  testimony — i.e.,  inheritance,  but  the 
opinion  of  editors — i.e.,  revision.  Setting  aside,  then, 
the  documents  containing  the  Syrian  text,  we  are  left 


THE  METHODS   OF  CRITICISM.      159 

with  only  three  classes  representing  the  New  Testa- 
ment text.  That  the  Western  class  is  an  independent 
class  is  easily  proved  ;  and  its  character  is  so  strongly 
marked  that  it  stands  quite  apart  from  all  other 
types.  The  Alexandrian  is  more  difficult  to  deal 
with.  Although  there  is  much  that  would  lead  us  to 
assign  an  independent  position  to  it,  too,  on  the  whole 
it  seems  to  be  the  truer  disposition  to  join  it  with 
the  Neutral,  and  arrange  these  two  as  two  great  sub- 
classes of  a  greater  class,  including  them  both  and 
standing  over  against  the  Western.  With  this  dis- 
position, the  ISTew  Testament  genealogy  will  have  a 
form  of  descent  worked  out  for  it  which  is  very 
closely  analogous  to  that  for  Catullus,  which  we 
have  used  as  a  sample  genealogy;  and  it  may  be 
graphically  represented  as  follows  : — 
Oeiginal  Text. 
Western  Text.  X 


Neutral  Text.  Alexandrian  Text. 

Had  no  complications  of  mixture  entered  into  the 
descent  of  the  various  documents  which  at  present 
represent  these  three  classes,  this  genealogical  scheme 
would  teach  us  that  a  combination  of  the  Western 
text  with  either  the  Neutral  or  Alexandrian  would 
necessarily  take  us  back  to  the  common  original  of 
all.  On  the  other  hand,  wherever  each  text  appeared 
as  sponsor  for  a  different  reading,  or  the  Neutral  and 
Alexandrian  stood  opposed  to  the  Western,  the  bear- 
ing of  the  external  evidence  could  be  settled  only 
by  calling  in  internal  evidence  of  classes.  This  last 
named  process  proves  to  speak  with  no  doubtful  voice. 


160  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

It  condemns  the  Western  text  as  the  most  corrupt 
of  all  known  forms ;  it  commends  the  Neutral  as  the 
most  correct  of  all  forms ;  and  it  assigns  a  character 
somewhat  intermediate  between  the  two  to  the  Alex- 
andrian. The  observed  characteristics  of  the  various 
classes  account  for  this  verdict.  The  licence  which 
seems  to  have  characterised  the  scribes  whose  copy- 
ings formed  the  Western  text  may  be  almost  described 
as  audacity :  paraphrase,  assimilation,  modification, 
elaboration,  extensive  interpolation,  abound  every- 
where, and  result  in  the  most  corrupt  text  which 
has  ever  been  current.  The  Alexandrian  text  is  cha- 
racterised rather  by  workmanlike  and  even  scholarly 
corrections  of  forms  or  syntax,  and  petty  modifica- 
tions, which  might  easily  creep  in  where  the  scribe 
was  also  partly  editor.  While  honest  and  careful 
copying,  with  only  the  intrusion  of  the  errors  inci- 
dent to  all  copying,  seems  to  be  the  characteristic  of 
the  Neutral  text.  The  Syrian  text,  formed  on  the 
basis  of  these  preceding  types,  appears  to  have  been 
an  effort  to  replace  by  a  purer  and  smoother  text 
the  corrupt  Western  type,  which  had  been  at  that 
time,  for  probably  a  century  at  the  least,  practically 
the  Textus  llecejUus  of  the  Christian  world.  As  such 
it  was  eminently  successful ;  and  gave  to  the  Church 
for  the  next  millennium  and  a  half  a  textus  7'eceptus 
that  is  practically  free  from  the  gross  faults  of  the 
Western  text,  that  is  noble  and  attractive  in  form 
and  worthy  in  diction,  and  peculiarly  suited  for  the 
cursory  perusal  of  the  closet  or  reading-desk.  Con- 
sidered as  a  i-epresentative  of  the  New  Testament, 
it  is  competently  exact   for  all   practical   purposes; 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.      161 

considered  as  an  eflfort  to  reform  a  corrupt  textiis 
receiMis,  it  is  worthy  of  great  admiration  when  the 
narrow  opportunities  of  the  time  when  it  was  made 
are  kept  in  view;  but,  considered  as  a  witness  of 
what  was  in  the  original  JSTew  Testament,  it  passes 
out  of  court  simply  because  it  is  a  good  editorially- 
framed  revision  of  the  text,  and  not  a  simple  copy 
of  it. 

It  will  scarcely  need  repeating  at  this  point,  how- 
ever, that  mixture,  so  far  from  being  absent  from, 
has  been  specially  active  among  New  Testament  MSS. 
To  such  an  extent  has  it  ruled,  that  we  have  perhaps 
only  four  codices  that  have  escaped  it  altogether,  to 
which  may  possibly  be  added  one  version.  Codex  B 
in  the  Gospels,  Acts,  and  Catholic  Epistles  (not  in 
Paul),  seems  to  be  purely,  or  all  but  purely,  Neutral ; 
D,  D2,  G3,  seem  purely  Western  everywhere,  and  to 
them  may  possibly  be  added  the  African  Latin  version. 
No  extant  document  presents  an  Alexandrian  text 
unmixed ;  both  Western  and  Neutral  admixtures 
have  entered  even  C,  L,  A  (in  Mark),  and  the  Mem- 
phitic  version,  the  most  constant  representatives  of 
this  type  of  text.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  a  com- 
bination of  the  Western  and  Alexandrian  documents 
need  not  be  a  combination  of  these  two  texts,  and 
therefore  will  not  overbear  the  testimony  of  the 
Neutral  class ;  and  internal  evidence  of  groups  pro- 
claims the  Neutral  usually  the  better  reading  in 
such  cases.  To  B,  D,  Dg,  and  G3  there  need  be  added 
only  some  small  fragments  such  as  T,  S,  to  complete 
the  list  of  New  Testament  MSS.  which  have  not 
received   mixture   from   the    Syrian   text.     B  has  a 

11 


162  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

Western  element  in  Paul's  epistles  mixed  with  its 
Neutral  base,  but  apparently  has  nowhere  received 
Alexandrian  admixture.  N  has  a  Neutral  base,  but 
has  received  both  Alexandrian  and  Western  elements 
by  mixture,  although  these  elements  are  unequally 
distributed,  being  most  abundant  in  the  Gospels 
(especially  in  John  and  parts  of  Luke),  and  ap- 
parently in  the  Apocalypse,  and  least  abundant  in 
Paul.  Among  the  versions  the  African  Latin  seems 
purely  Western,  and  the  Curetonian  Syriac  predomi- 
natingly so ;  while  the  Memphitic  and  Thebaic, 
though  betraying  some  Syrian  admixture  in  their 
extant  forms,  were  originally  probably  Neutral-Alex- 
andrian with  a  Western  admixture, — largest  in  the 
Thebaic.  All  other  documents  have  a  larger  or 
smaller  Syrian  element,  and  thus  present  very  com- 
posite texts.  A  is  fundamentally  Syrian  in  the 
Gospels;  but  in  the  other  books  has  only  a  Syrian 
admixture  on  a  base  fundamentally  Neutral,  with 
Western  and  Alexandrian  elements  (the  latter  espe- 
cially in  the  Acts  and  Epistles).  L  is  Alexandrian- 
Neutral  with  Western  admixture.  A  is  fundamentally 
Syrian  (probably  as  copied  from  a  MS.  fully  corrected 
by  a  Syrian  codex)  everywhere  except  in  Mark,  where 
it  is  very  largely  Alexandrian-Neutral.  Among  the 
codices  which  have  a  Syrian  element  such  MSS.  as 
C,  L,  P,  Q,  E,  Z,  r,  A  (in  Mark),  33,  81  (=  2^^),  157 
in  the  Gospels,  A,C,E,  13,  Gl  in  Acts  and  the  Catholic 
Epistles,  A,  C,  M,  H,  P,  1 7,  67**  in  Paul,  and  A,  C,  P 
in  the  Apocalypse,  preserve  the  largest  proportion  of 
pre-Syrian  readings. 

The  effect  of  this  state  of  things  on  the  genealogy 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       163 

of  the  MSS.  of  the  Gospels,  say,  for  example,  may 

be  roughly  represented  to  the  eye  by  the  following 

diagram,   which  does  not  aim  to  arrange  the  MSS. 

in  anything  like  their  actual  relations  to  one  another, 

but  only  to  represent  in  the  simplest  way  the  general 

effect  of  mixture. 

Original  Text. 

r -^ n 

W  X 

r-^-r--r— n  .  r "^ . 

■vv'v  w"*  w"  a'=pw'  n  a 

.1 r-Hr— 1.       .1 r."^i 

I        I.      I.     I...      I  I. 

I .    I.;  I      I ^n       I      I    I       I  I 

w^  w^'"' wa"  a'^^wan  wan'=pn'^"  n^  B      a"''=wan  a"^" 

111...                             II.  I  I... 

D    w'''  wa"i  N        n^' j — ^waan     a^»' 

I        I  r T~^ 1  I 

w^       I  waann  Mempli.  waann'  =p  a''^ 

r      I' -^1 

a^  ==j= -waaann  [C] 

Old  Latin  [L] 

A  few  of  the  symbols  of  actual  documents  have 
been  (very  approximately)  introduced  into  this  dia- 
gram, in  order  to  give  point  to  its  lessons.  The 
letters  w,  n,  and  a  are  intended  to  represent  respect- 
ively the  Western,  Neutral,  and  Alexandrian  classes, 
each  of  which  originated,  of  course,  in  a  single  copy, 
although  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  peculiarities 
of  each  class  grew  progressively  more  and  more 
marked,  and  took  time  and  many  copyings  thoroughly 
to  develop.  In  the  lines  of  descent  from  w,  n,  and  a, 
the  single  letters  variously  primed — e.g.,  w^,  w"\  n^, 
n^^,  a^,  a'^ — are  intended  to  represent  unmixed  descend- 
ants, while  the  ordinary  genealogical  sign  of  marriage 


wa' 


164  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

(=)  is  used  to  represent  the  union  of  two  documents 
for  the  production  of  a  third,  the  more  or  less 
composite  character  of  which  is  indicated  by  the 
combination  of  letters  which  represents  it, — e.g.,  wa, 
■\vn,  an,  wan,  waan,  waann,  etc. 

Now,  the  essence  of  the  genealogical  principle  is  that 
any  combination  of  documents  has  weight  in  propor- 
tion to  the  distance  from  the  autograph  of  the  point 
in  the  genealogy  at  which  the  lines  of  descent  of  this 
combination  unite.  Assuming  that  the  documents 
^5,  B,  C,  D,  L,  Old  Latin,  Memphitic,  have  been  justly 
placed  in  the  genealogy,  it  is  possible  to  estimate  the 
value  of  each  combination  of  these  docu.ments  by 
tracing  them  out  in  the  table.  For  example,  the 
line  that  connects  B  with  the  autograph  and  the 
line  that  connects  D  with  the  autograph  do  not 
come  together  until  they  reach  the  autograph  itself ; 
accidental  conjunction  in  obvious  corrections  or  un- 
avoidable corruptions  apart,  therefore,  the  combina- 
tion B  D  should  be  equivalent  to  the  original  text 
itself.  On  the  other  hand,  since  j<  traces  back  to  the 
autograph  through  three  different  lines — viz.,  through 
w,  n,  and  a — a  combination  of  it  with  any  other 
document,  whether  a  Western  one  like  D,  or  a 
Neutral  one  like  B,  or  a  prevailingly  Alexandrian 
one  like  C,  may,  indeed,  be  a  combination  of  classes, 
and  so  take  us  to  their  union  ;  or  it  may  be  only  a 
combination  of  documents  within  one  class,  and  take 
us  only  to  w,  or  to  n,  or  to  a.  The  combination  D  j^, 
for  instance,  may  be  a  combination  of  Western  D  with 
X  in  its  Western  element,  and  so  take  us  only  to  w ; 
or  it  may  be  wdth  {^  in  its  Alexandrian  or  Neutral 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.      165 

element,  and  so  take  us  to  the  original  text.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  the  Western  element  in  x  is 
particularly  large  in  the  Gospels ;  hence  D  j^  here 
is  apt  to  be  only  a  combination  of  two  Western 
witnesses ;  we  shall  not  be  surprised,  therefore,  to 
note  that  internal  evidence  of  groups  usually  con- 
demns this  group.  For  the  same  reason,  however, 
the  combination  B  j^,  which  might  carry  us  equally 
easily  to  n,  to  X,  or  to  the  autograph  through  j<'s 
Western  element,  is  most  apt  to  do  the  latter ;  and 
herein  we  see  the  reason  why  internal  evidence  of 
groups  gives  such  high  character  to  B  {^.  Let  these 
instances  suffice.  The  student  will  readily  see  that 
the  genealogical  evidence  proper  needs  only  supple- 
menting by  internal  evidence  of  classes,  by  which 
we  learn  that  w  is  a  very  corrupt  and  n  a  specially 
good  line  of  descent,  to  make  this  distribution  of  the 
New  Testament  documents  into  their  proper  classes  a 
very  valuable  engine  of  criticism. 

The  relative  divergence  of  the  three  great  classes 
from  the  line  of  pure  descent  is  not  illustrated  by 
the  diagram,  and  therefore  it  tells  us  nothing  of  the 
results  obtained  by  the  important  process  of  internal 
evidence  of  classes.  Perhaps  even  this  may  be  roughly 
represented  to  the  eye  by  a  diagram  of  the  following 
form.  If  X  y  be  taken  to  represent  the  line  along 
which  all  documents  would  have  been  ranged,  had  an 
absolutely  pure  descent  been  preserved  and  no  errors 
introduced,  z  q  may  be  taken  to  represent  the 
actual  line  of  descent  which  the  Western  documents 
have  taken,  k  v  that  of  the  Alexandrian,  and  t  s  that 
of  the  Neutral ;  while  w  p  will  represent  the  line  of 


166 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 


descent  of  the  Syrian  class.  Along  the  line  z  q  may- 
be placed,  therefore,  the  Western  documents,  each 
later  one  representing  a  greater  divergence  from  the 
true  text;  along  k  v  the  Alexandrian  documents, 
and  along  t  s  the  Neutral  ones.  As  ^5  and  C  L  are 
mixed,  they  may  be  assigned  a  more  or  less  inter- 
mediate position,  with  dotted  lines  connecting  them 
with  their  several  sources.  It  is  evident  that  the 
combination  of  any  two  documents  will  take  us  to  the 
point  in  the  descent  of  the  text  where  their  separate 
h  t  True  Text. 


descents  coincide.  B,  standing  just  beyond  t  on  t  s, 
is  nearest  the  true  text  of  all  single  documents.  The 
two  lines  of  B's  and  of  D's  descent  can  unite,  when 
traced  back,  only  at  z,  on  the  line  of  true  descent,  and 
at  a  point  very  far  back  in  time.  ^^  draws  a  con- 
tingent from  the  Western  text,  and  hence  ^  D  may 
only  take  us  to  some  place  on  z  q ;  it  also  draws  an 
element  from  the  Alexandrian  text,  and  hence  x  D 
may  take  us  to  z  on  the  line  of  true  descent;  and 
it  also  draws  an  element  from  the  Neutral  text,  and 
hence  again  x  D  may  take  us  to  z  on  the  line  of  true 
descent.     Which  of  these  is  the  true  account  can  be 


THE   METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.      167 

told  in  general  only  by  internal  evidence  of  groups, 
although  in  particular  instances  it  may  be  discovered 
from  the  nature  of  the  opposing  party.  For  example, 
if  ^^  D  stands  opposed  to  B  C  L  A  in  a  passage  in 
Mark,  we  can  argue  that  the  element  of  t<  represented 
here  is  neither  the  Neutral  element  (else  would  it 
stand  with  B),  nor  the  Alexandrian  element  (else 
would  it  agree  with  C  L  A),  but  the  Western 
element ;  and  hence  j^  D  is  here  Western,  and  takes 
us  only  to  some  point  on  z  q,  off  of  the  true  line  of 
descent. 

This  exposition  of  the  genealogical  method  has 
been  but  little  successful  unless  it  has  shown,  along 
with  the  nature  of  genealogies  in  general,  somewhat 
also  of  the  effect  of  mixture  on  the  genealogies  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  of  the  methods  that  must  be 
adopted  to  overcome  the  difficulties  raised  by  it. 
There  remains,  therefore,  only  to  give  a  more 
extended  list  of  the  documents  which  represent 
each  class  before  we  can  proceed  to  study  the 
application  of  this  method  to  practical  use.  Let  the 
student  only  remember  that  we  must  treat,  here 
too,  each  section  of  the  New  Testament  separately, 
and  that  by  reason  of  mixture  a  single  document 
may  find  place  equally  well  in  more  than  one  class, 
and  the  following  list  will  be  useful  to  him. 

The  Neutral  text  is  more  especially  represented 
by  the  following  documents,  viz. : — In  the  Gospels : 
B  (purely),  x  largely,  and  then  T,  B,  L,  33,  A  (in 
Mark),  C,Z,Il,  Q,  P,  Memph.  (Theb.)  (Syr^^^^').  In 
the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles :  B  (probably  purely), 
fc<,  61,  A,  C,  13,  P  (except  in  Acts  and  1  Peter),  and 


168  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

snch  minuscules  as  27,  29,  31,  36,  40,  44,  68,  69,102, 
110,  112,  137,  180,  etc.,  Memph.  (Theb.)  Syr^^^^  In 
Paul:  B,  i^,  A,  C,  17,  P,  67**,  M,  H,  Memph.  (Theb.) 
In  the  Ai^ocalypse  :  A,  P,  {<,  Memph.  (Theb.) 

The  Western  text  is  most  fully  represented  by  the 
following  documents,  viz  : — In  the  Gospels :  D  (purely), 
N,  X,  r,  81  (=2P*^),  lectionary  39,  1-118-131-209, 
13-69-124-346,  22,  28,  157.  Also  C,  A  (in  Mark), 
S,  L,  P,  Q,  E',  Z,  N,  W^^,  33,  African"  and  European 
Latin,  Syr^^  et  ^^^^-^^s-  et^^^^^',  Theb.  (Memph.)  In  the 
Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles :  D  (purely),  5<,  E,  31,  44, 
(of  Hort),  61,  137,  180.  Also  A,  C,  13,  African  and 
European  Latin,  Syr  ^^^^^  "^s-,  Theb.  (Memph).  In  Faul  : 
D,  G,  [E,  F],  (purely),  then  x,  B,  31,  37,  46,  80,  137, 
221,  etc.  Also  A,  C,  P,  17,  M,  H,  67**,  African  and 
European  Latin,  Syr.  ^'^-  ^^s-,  Theb.  (Memph.).  In  the 
A2yocaly2^se :  n,  also  A,  P,  African  and  European 
Latin,  Theb.  (Memph.). 

The  Alexandrian  text  is  most  prominently  repre- 
sented by  the  following  documents  : — In  the  Gospels  : 
C,  L,  N,  A  (in  Mark),  X,  33,  Z,  S,  P,  1,  57,  Memph. 
Theb.  (Pst.  Syi\).  In  the  Acts  a7id  Catholic  Ejnstles  : 
A,  C,  s»,  E,  13,  61,  P  (in  Cath.  Epistles  except  1  John). 
Also  27,  29,  36,  40,  68,  69,  102,  110,  112,  Memph. 
Theb.  (Pst.  Syr.).  In  Paul:  A,  C,  N»,  P,  5,  6,  17,  23, 
39,  47,  73,  137,  Memph.  Theb.  (Pst.  Syr.).  In  the 
Aijocalypse  :    ^,  P,  Memph.  Theb. 

The  Syrian  text  is  found  in  the  following  uncials, 
together  with  most  minuscules  : — In  the  Gospels  : 
A,  E,  F,  G,  H,  S,  U,  V,  A,  IT,  and  in  less  degree  in 
C,  L,  N,  P,  Q,  E,  X,  M,  r,  A.  In  the  Acts  and  Catholic 
Epistles:  H,  L,  P,  K,  and  in  large  part  P,  and  in 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.      169 

less  degree  in  A,  C,  E.  In  Paul :  K,  L,  N,  also  in 
H,  P  M,  0,  0^,  Q,  R,  and  in  less  degree  in  A,  C.  In 
the  Apocalypse :  B,  and  in  large  part  P,  and  in  less 
degree  C,  A. 

The  post-Nicene  fathers  generally,  present  a  Syrian 
text  in  their  citations,  although  Cyril  of  Alexandria, 
Apollinaris  (Kara  iJiepo<i  TrtVns),  and  less  markedly  Epi- 
phanius,  and  even  John  of  Damascus,  are  to  greater  or 
less  extent  exceptions  to  this  rule.  The  ante-Nicene 
patristic  citations  are  prevailingly  Western ;  this  is 
true  of  those  of  Marcion,  Justin,  Irenseus,  Hippoly- 
tus,  Methodius,  Eusebius,  and  even  to  some  extent  of 
Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Origen.  A  large  non- 
Western  pre-Syrian  element  is  found,  also,  however, 
in  the  Alexandrian  fathers,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
Origen,  Dionysius,  Peter,  and  also  in  a  less  degree  in 
Eusebius  and  others. 

The  ready  application  of  the  genealogical  method 
to  practical  use  in  criticism  will  depend  on  our  ability 
to  read  the  digests  of  readings,  where  the  evidence  is 
expressed  in  terms  of  individual  MSS.,  in  terms  of 
the  classes  of  MSS.,  or,  in  other  words,  to  translate 
testimony  expressed  in  terms  of  individual  MSS.  into 
testimony  expressed  in  terms  of  classes  of  MSS.  The 
proper  procedure  may  be  tabulated  somewhat  as 
follows: — (1)  First,  sift  out  all  Syrian  evidence  from 
the  mass  of  witnesses  recorded  in  the  digest,  and  thus 
confine  attention  to  the  pre-Syrian  testimony.  If,  on 
sifting  out  the  Syrian  evidence,  only  one  reading  is 
left,  it  is,  of  course,  the  oldest  transmitted  reading, 
and  as  such  is  to  be  accepted.  (2)  ISText,  identify  the 
pre-Syrian  classes,  Western,  Alexandrian,  and  Neutral, 


170  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM. 

by  separating  the  chief  representatives  of  each  from 
the  body  of  the  witnesses,  allowing  everywhere  for 
mixture.  (3)  If,  now,  we  have  three  readings,  one 
supported  by  each  of  the  pre-Syrian  classes,  the 
Neutral  reading  should  have  the  preference.  (4)  If 
we  have  only  two  readings,  that  supported  by  the 
Neutral  and  Western  against  the  Alexandrian  is  to 
be  preferred ;  or  that  supported  by  the  Neutral  and 
Alexandrian  against  the  Western  is  to  be  preferred ; 
or  (since  all  prominent  Alexandrian  documents  have 
a  large  Western  element)  that  supported  by  the 
Neutral  against  the  Western  and  Alexandrian  is  to 
be  preferred. 

A  few  examples  are  needed  to  illustrate  practice 
under  these  rules.  The  sifting  out  of  the  Syrian 
evidence  is  rendered  necessary  by  the  relation  which 
the  Syrian  class  bears  to  the  others  as  dependent  on 
them  and  made  out  of  them,  by  which  its  evidence  is 
made  collusive  and  confusing.  It  will  be  sufficiently 
accurately  accomplished  at  first  by  confining  attention 
to  the  following  documents,  viz.  :  in  the  Gospels  : 
i<,  B,  C,  D,  L,  P,  Q,  R,  T,  Z,  A  (in  Mark),  H,  33,  Latin 
versions,  Curetonian  and  Jerusalem  Syriac,  Memphitic, 
and  Thebaic  ;  in  Acts,  x.  A,  B,  C,  D,  E,  13,  61,  and  the 
same  versions  (except  the  Curetonian  Syriac,  which  is 
not  extant  here);  in  the  Catholic  Epistles,  n,  A,B,C, 
13,  the  Latin  versions,  Memphitic  and  Thebaic  ;  in 
Paul,  js».  A,  B,  C,  D,  G,  17,  Ql--'-%  and  the  same  versions; 
and  everywhere  the  certain  quotations  of  the  ante- 
Nicene  fathers.  Any  reading  which  has  the  support 
of  no  one  of  these  witnesses  may  be  safely  set 
aside   as   Syrian  or  post-Syrian;  and  even  if  a  few 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM,       171 

of  these  witnesses  which  contain  a  large  Syrian  element 
join  with  the  mass  of  later  witnesses  against  the 
body  of  those  named  here,  the  reading  may  still  be 
safely  neglected  as  Syrian.  Not  infrequently  the 
reading  is  settled  by  the  sifting  out  of  the  Syrian 
documents ;  when  they  are  removed,  the  variation  is 
removed  too.  An  instance  may  be  found  in  Mark  i.  2, 
where  "  in  the  -prophets  "  is  read  by  A,  E,  F,  G,  H,  K, 
M,  P,  U,  V,  r,  IT,  many  minuscules,  the  text  of  the 
Harclean  Syriac,  the  Armenian  according  to  Zohrab's 
edition,  the  ^thiopic,  and  some  late  fathers,  including 
the  Latin  translation  of  Irenseus  in  opposition  to  the 
Greek  elsewhere.  Only  P  in  this  list  occurs  in 
the  test  list  given  above,  and  the  whole  support  of 
the  reading  is,  therefore,  distinctly  Syrian,  so  that 
when  the  Syrian  testimony  is  sifted  out  we  have 
left  only  "  in  Isaiah  the  prophet^^  supported  by  the 
whole  pre-Syrian  array — viz.,  B  ^{  33,  L  A,  D,  about 
twenty-five  minuscules,  the  Latin  versions,  the  Mem- 
phitic,  Peshitto,  Jerusalem,  and  margin  of  the  Harclean 
Syriac,  the  Gothic,  and  codices  of  the  Armenian 
versions,  with  Irenaeus  and  Origen  among  the  fathers. 
In  like  manner  the  addition  of  kv  rw  cfiavepio  in  Matt. 
vi.  4  and  6  is  sifted  out  with  the  Syrian  testimony, 
leaving  the  whole  body  of  pre-Syrian  witnesses  at 
one  for  its  omission.  In  such  cases  our  work  is 
easily  done,  and  the  text  is  restored  with  the  very 
greatest  certitude.  Any  reading  supported  only  by 
the  Syrian  class  is  convicted  of  having  originated 
after  a.d.  250. 

Often,  however,  we  seem  no  nearer  our  goal,  after 
the  Syrian  evidence  has  been  sifted  out,  than  we  were 


172  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM. 

at  the  start.  Two  or  sometimes  three  readings  may- 
still  face  us,  and  our  real  task  is  yet  before  us.  The 
next  step  is  to  identify  the  classes  represented  in 
the  groups  of  witnesses  supporting  each  reading,  by 
attending  very  carefully  to  their  constituent  elements, 
whether  pure  representatives  of  any  one  class  or 
mixed  representatives  of  more  than  one.  This  is 
often  a  very  delicate  piece  of  work,  but  it  is  often 
also  easy,  and  is  generally  at  least  possible.  It  is 
usually  best  to  begin  by  identifying  a  class  of  which 
we  have  pure  representatives,  and  to  proceed  thence 
to  those  the  only  extant  representatives  of  w^hich 
are  mixed.  In  the  Gospels  it  is  nearly  equally  easy 
to  identify  the  Neutral  and  the  Western  readings; 
in  Paul  we  should  begin  with  the  Western ;  in  Acts 
and  the  Catholic  Epistles,  again,  we  may  almost 
equally  well  begin  with  either  the  Western  or 
Neutral.  Let  us  look  at  Mark  iii.  29  as  an  example. 
Here  the  reading  ^^ judgment "  sifts  out  w^ith  the 
Syrian  testimony,  and  we  are  confronted  with  the  pair 
of  readings  djaaprri/xaro?  supported  by  ,  B,  L,  A,  28,  33, 
81  (=  2?^=),  and  d/xaprtas  supported  by  C'"^,  D,  13, 
69,  346,  Ath.  The  versions  here  can  give  but  little 
help,  and  we  omit  them  altogether.  We  note  at  once 
that  purely  Western  D  is  united  with  a  small  body 
of  adherents,  all  of  which  have  Western  elements,  in 
support  of  tt/xapna?,  wdiich  we  may  thus  recognise  as 
Western.  On  the  other  side,  the  purely  Neutral  B 
stands  in  the  midst  of  a  group  which  therefore 
certainly  embraces  the  Neutral  class.  Whether 
d/xapr^/xaros  is  also  Alexandrian  is  more  doubtful, 
inasmuch  as  the  Alexandrian  documents  supporting 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       173 

it  have  all  Neutral  elements.  On  the  whole,  however, 
this  reading  may  be  safely  set  down  to  the  credit 
of  both  the  Alexandrian  and  Neutral  classes.  But 
in  either  contingency  internal  evidence  of  classes 
determines  for  it  as  probably  the  true  reading.  A 
similar  example  may  be  found  in  the  vivid  insertion 
of  TO  in  Mark  ix.  23,  which  has  the  support  of 
B  i<,  C  L  A,  X  r,  involving  the  typical  Neutral  and 
Alexandrian  witnesses  against  the  omission  by  D,  13, 
28,  69,  81  (=  2P^),  124,  131,  which  is  recognisably 
Western.  In  the  next  verse  (ix.  24)  the  /aera  SaKpvoiv 
is  in  the  same  way  recognised  as  Western,  supported  as 
it  is  by  D,  N,  X,  T,  the  European,  Itahan  and  Vulgate 
Latin,  Peshitto  and  Harclean  Syriac  and  Gothic  ver- 
sions, while  its  omission  is  testified  by  B  x,  C^*  L  A, 
28,  k  of  the  African  Latin,  the  Memphitic,  Armenian 
and  ^thiopic  versions — i.e.,  by  the  combined  Neutral 
and  Alexandrian  witnesses.  A  considerable  insertion 
of  the  Western  text  is  found  in  Mark  ix.  45  and  4G, 
supported  only  by  D,  N,  X,  F,  Latin,  Syriac,  Gothic 
and  ^thiopic  versions,  while  the  omission  is  sup- 
ported by  B  N,  C  L  A,  1,  28,  81(=  21^^^),  118,  251, 
k  of  the  African  Latin,  Memphitic,  and  Armenian. 
On  the  same  kind  of  evidence  Mark  ix.  49,  last 
clause,  and  xi.  26,  are  recognised  as  interpolations  of 
the  Western  text.  In  all  these  cases  we  have  pro- 
ceeded by  identifying  and  rejecting  the  Western 
reading,  and  the  help  in  determining  the  text  has 
been  sure  and  immediate. 

In  such  a  reading,  on  the  other  hand,  as  the  addi- 
tion of  prjfjia  in  Matt.  v.  11,  which  is  witnessed  by 
C,  r,  A,  Peshitto   and  Harclean  Syriac,  and   Origen, 


174  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM. 

against  X,  B,  D,  Latin,  Memphitic,  Jerusalem  Syriac, 
and  ^thiopic  versions,  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria;  or 
such  an  one  as  the  addition  of  rots  ap^oloi'i  in  Matt. 
V.  27,  by  L,  A,  33,  later  Latin,  Curetonian  Syriac  and 
Harclean  Syriac  versions,  Irenaeus,  and  Eusebius, 
against  B  j<,  DP,  African  and  European  Latin, 
Memphitic,  Peshitto  Syriac,  Armenian,  ^thiopic,  and 
Gothic  versions,  and  Origen ;  we  must  proceed  by 
identifying  and  rejecting  the  Alexandrian  reading, 
which  appears  to  be  opposed  by  the  combined  Neutral 
(B,  j<,  etc.)  and  Western  (D,  etc.)  witnesses.  In  such 
cases  the  Alexandrian  reading  is  identified  by  a 
process  of  exclusion  :  for  example,  in  the  former  case 
C,  A,  are  not  Neutral,  for  they  separate  from  the 
Neutral  documents,  and  they  are  not  Western,  for 
they  separate  from  the  Western  documents;  they 
must  be,  then,  either  Alexandrian  or  Syrian,  and 
the  presence  of  the  reading  in  Origen  seems  to  point 
to  the  former.  In  these  cases,  too,  the  reading  is 
settled  securely  by  the  combination  of  Western  and 
Neutral  witnesses. 

Still  another  class  of  variations  may  be  illustrated 
by  the  insertion  or  omission  of  "  which  art  in  heaven  " 
at  the  opening  of  the  Lord's  Praj^er  in  Luke's  account 
of  it.  The  insertion  is  supported  by  the  Syrian  text, 
and  also  by  D,  C,  P,  A,  X,  33,  etc..  Old  Latin  codices, 
Curetonian,  Peshitto  and  Harclean  Syriac,  Memphitic, 
and  ^thiopic ;  and  the  omission  by  B,  N,  L,  1,  22, 
57,  130,  346,  Vulgate  Latin,  and  Armenian  versions, 
Origen  and  Tertullian.  The  Neutral  text  certainly  is 
for  omission  (B,  x,  etc.),  and  the  Western  for  insertion 
(D,  Old  Latin,  Curetonian  Syriac).     But  representa- 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       175 

tives  of  the  Alexandrian  text  are  on  both  sides  :  5<,  L, 
1,  57,  on  one,  and  C,  V,  A,  X,  33,  Memph.,  on  the 
other.  If  we  could  be  sure  that  this  latter  group 
represented  the  Alexandrian  here,  its  union  with  the 
Western  would  carry  our  decision  with  it ;  but  every 
single  member  of  it  is  so  strongly  mixed  with  Western 
readings  that  it  would  be  dangerous  in  the  extreme 
to  count  it  anything  but  Western  here.  So  that  we 
can  only  believe  that  we  have  here  a  case  of  Neutral 
versus  AYestern,  and  follow  the  former  accordingly. 
As  for  the  Alexandrian  reading,  it  is  either  lost  or 
else  represented  by  L,  1,  57.  Internal  evidence  of 
groups  not  only  supports  this  conclusion,  but  forces 
it  upon  us.  Quite  similarly  ''  Let  Thy  kingdom  come, 
as  in  heaven,  also  on  the  earth  "  is  inserted  at  the  end 
of  the  same  verse  by  i^,  C,  V,  A,  X,  D,  Old  Latin, 
Peshitto  and  Harclean  Syriac,  Memphitic,  and  ^thio" 
pic,  against  the  protest  of  B,  L,  1,  22,  130,  346, 
Vulgate  Latin,  Curetonian  Syriac,  Armenian,  and 
Origen  and  Tertullian.  The  transference  of  N,  which 
has  a  very  marked  Western  element  in  Luke,  makes 
no  essential  difference  in  the  testimony ;  every  codex 
arrayed  here  with  D  has  a  large  Western  element, 
and  the  whole  combination  is  explicable  as  a  Western 
inheritance.  So  that  again  we  treat  the  matter  as  an 
instance  of  Western  versus  Neutral,  and  decide  accord- 
ingly, by  internal  evidence  of  classes,  for  the  Neutral. 
A  special  but  very  small  class  of  readings,  called 
by  Dr.  Hort  "  Western  non-interpolations,"  deserves 
a  separate  notice.  An  example  may  be  found  in  the 
odd  insertion  into  Matt,  xxvii.  49,  to  which  attention 
was  called  when  we  were  speaking  of  internal  evidence 


176  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM. 

of  groups.  The  insertion  is  supported  by  x,  B,  C,  L, 
U,  r,  5,  48,  67,  115,  127,  ^thiopic,— including  the 
Neutral  {^,  B,  etc.),  and  Alexandrian  (C,  L,  V,  5, 
48,  67,  etc.)  witnesses.  The  omission  has  the  support 
of  only  D,  A,  E,  F,  G,  H,  K,  M,  S,  Y,  A,  H,  most 
minuscules,  the  Latin,  Peshitto  and  Harclean  Syriac, 
Memphitic,  Gothic,  and  Armenian  versions,  and  the 
like, — which  are  easily  seen  to  be  Syrian  and  Western. 
Yet,  as  already  pointed  out,  internal  evidence  of  read- 
ings seems  to  forbid  our  accepting  these*  words  as 
genuine,  and  thus  forces  us  to  decide  against  the 
combination  of  the  Neutral  and  Alexandrian  and  for 
the  Western  standing  alone.  In  this  reading,  and 
possibly  in  some  others  like  it  (for  each  must  be 
treated  apart),  we  have  the  exception  to  the  general 
rule  that  the  Neutral- Alexandrian  class  is  better  than 
the  Western,  which  the  genealogical  scheme  on  which 
we  are  working  allows  for  and  hence  presupposes.  If 
the  Neutral  and  Alexandrian  have  been  rightly 
accounted  two  branches  of  one  stem  set  over  against 
the  Western,  it  would  be  difficult  to  understand  how 
it  could  happen  that  the  Western  should  be  always 
wrong,  without  exception,  and  this  stem  always  right. 
The  process  of  internal  evidence  of  classes,  like  internal 
evidence  of  groups  and  documents,  determines  only 
general  and  usual  relations,  and  the  exceptions  to  the 
general  rule  can  be  detected  only  by  internal  evidence 
of  readings.  If,  for  the  moment,  we  conceive  of  the 
line  xt  in  the  last  diagram  as  not  the  line  of  abso- 
lutely true  descent,  but  the  actual  line  of  descent  of 
codices,  from  which  zq  diverges  when  the  descent 
becomes  Western,  k  v  when  it  becomes  Alexandrian, 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       Ill 

and  t  s  when  it  becomes  Neutral,  it  will  be  evident 
to  the  eye  that  the  Neutro-Alexandrian  descent  co- 
incided for  the  space  represented  by  z  k,  after  the 
separation  of  the  Western  descent  had  taken  place, 
and  hence  it  is  to  be  expected  that  the  combination 
Neutral- Alexandrian  will  testify  to  some  errors 
introduced  into  their  common  stem  during  the  series 
of  copyings  represented  by  the  space  z  k.  In  other 
w^ords,  reverting  to  the  former  diagram,  the  very  fact 
that  the  Neutral  and  Alexandrian  chisses  are  arranged, 
not  as  two  independent  classes  co-ordinate  with  the 
Western,  but  as  two  sub-classes  of  X,  which  is  co- 
ordinate with  the  Western,  presupposes  that  they  will 
combine  against  the  Western  in  some  errors.  From 
all  which  we  learn  that  textual  criticism,  even  with 
the  aid  of  the  genealogical  evidence,  cannot,  any  more 
than  in  the  case  of  other  methods,  be  prosecuted 
mechanically;  but  each  reading  must  be  very  carefully 
considered,  separately,  ere  our  conclusion  concerning 
it  be  announced. 

Procedure  under  the  genealogical  method  in  Paul's 
Epistles  has  enough  of  speciality  to  render  it  desirable 
to  give  some  illustrations  of  it.  It  is  a  good  practical 
rule  to  go  by  in  the  G-ospels,  to  follow  the  group 
which  contains  B,  at  least  provisionally.  The  best 
practical  rule  to  go  by  in  Paul  is,  to  suspect  the  group 
which  contains  D,  G,  unless  practically  all  the  primary 
witnesses  join  with  them.  This  difference  of  procedure 
results  from  the  fact  that  B  is  purely  Neutral  in  the 
Gospels,  and  hence  forms  there  the  rallying  point  for 
the  documents  of  the  best  class  to  gather  around.  In 
Paul  B  has  a  Western  element,  and  hence  may  stand 

12 


178  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

with  only  Western  documents — the  worst  class — 
around  it.  With  no  pure  representative  of  either 
the  Neutral  or  Alexandrian  class,  we  are  reduced  in 
Paul  to  identifying,  as  our  first  step,  the  Western 
class  by  the  aid  of  its  pure  representatives  D  and  G, 
and  this  we  identify  only  to  reject,  if  it  stands 
alone.  And  as  all  codices  have  a  Western  element, 
it  follows  further  that  any  addition  to  D  G-  need 
not  alter  its  character  as  Western  and  probably 
corrupt.  Hence  ADG,  BDG,  i<  D  G,  C  D  G,  or 
A  B  D  G,  A  5<  D  G,  A  C  D  G,  B  C  D  G,  n»  C  D  G, 
alike,  need  represent  nothing  better  than  a  Western 
error.  No  a  priori  reason  exists  why  B  s  D  G 
might  not  equally  do  so ;  but  internal  evidence  of 
groups  here  steps  in  and  proclaims  this  group  so  good 
that  we  are  obliged  to  account  it  usually  a  union 
of  Neutral  (B 5<)  and  Western  (DG)  classes.  This 
only  shows  that  B  and  N,  although  both  having 
Western  elements,  get  their  Western  elements  inde- 
pendently, and  do  not  usually  coincide  in  the  same 
Western  corruption;  hence,  while  thoroughly  con- 
sistent with  the  genealogical  scheme,  this  finding  is 
inconsistent  with  the  supposition  that  these  two 
codices  come  from  a  proximate  original  only  a  step 
or  two  older  than  themselves.  The  larger  combina- 
tions, even,  such  as  A  C  t{  D  G,  or  A  B  C  D  G,  may 
still  be  merely  Western;  and  we  are  thus  led  to 
give  the  preference,  on  genealogical  grounds,  often 
to  small  groups  which  include  only  one  or  more 
primary  uncials  when  opposed  by  a  group  including 
DG. 

As  an  example,  we  may  look  at  2  Cor.  ii.  9,  where 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.        179 

after  the  Syrian  evidence  is  sifted  out,  we  have  ei, 
read  by  ^,  C,  D,  G,  P,  Latin  versions,  whereas  ^  is  the 
reading  of  B,  A,  17,  109.  Here,  although  all  the 
recent  editors  read  d  in  their  text  (Westcott  and  Hort 
placing  17  in  their  margin),  the  genealogical  evidence 
is  distinctly  in  favour  of  rj,  the  group  N  C  D  C  G  P 
being  distinctly  Western.  It  may  be  added  that  the 
transmutation  of  7]  into  et  either  by  itacism  (r;,  t,  et,) 
or  by  mistake  of  the  uncial  letters  (ei  for  h)  is  very 
easy  and  frequent :  a  case  of  it  occurs  in  the  neighbour- 
ing 2  Cor.  iii.  1,  where  d  ixrj  is  read  by  A,  P,  and 
Syrian  authorities,  while  -^  /x-^  stands  in  j<,  B,  C,  D,  G, 
31,  37,  67**,  Latin,  Memphitic,  etc.  Here  we  have  a 
combination  of  the  Neutral  and  Western  at  least,  if  not 
of  all  pre-Syrian  classes  against  Syrian  or  possibly  Syrian 
and  Alexandrian,  and  easily  follow  this  group  even 
though  it  contains  the  ominous  D  G,  since  along  with 
D  G  stands  N  B  C,  which  is  differentiated  from  other 
groups  including  D  G,  by  a  very  emphatic  verdict  of 
internal  evidence  of  groups.  The  complications  that 
can  arise  by  dividing  the  testimony  a  step  further  are 
well  illustrated  in  2  Cor.  ii.  7,  where  fxakXov  is  placed 
before  v/^as  by  }>?,  C,  L,  P,  Yulgate  Latin,  Memphitic, 
Harclean  Syriac,  Armenian,  and  Syrian  authorities, 
after  v/>tas  by  T>,  E,  F,  G,  17,  Goth.,  and  omitted  al- 
together by  B,  A,  Peshitto  Syriac,  and  Augustine. 
Tischendorf  and  Tregelles  follow  the  first  array, 
although  Tregelles  places  "omit"  opposite  in  the 
margin,  and  Westcott  and  Hort  foUow  the  last,  placing 
fxaWov  in  their  margin  before  v/xas.  Who  is  right  ? 
Primd facie  the  first  group  is  Alexandrian,  the  second 
Western,  and  the  third  Neutral;   and  were  this  the 


180  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

true  finding  it  would  be  difficult  to  resist  the  com- 
bined evidence  of  the  Western  and  Alexandrian  texts 
in  an  insertion  in  which  they  did  not  stand  in  collusion. 
More  likely,  however,  the  insertion  of  fiaXXov  is 
Western,  and  the  misplacing  of  it  a  later  divergence  ; 
in  which  case  Westcott  and  Hort's  conclusion  will  re- 
sult. Another  instructive  reading  occurs  in  2  Cor.  xii.  7, 
where  {<,  B,  A,  G,  17,  ^thiopic,  insert  a  Slo,  which 
D,  P,  the  Latin,  Gothic,  Syriac  and  Armenian  versions 
and  the  Syrian  evidence  omit.  The  omission  is  here 
easily  seen  to  be  Western,  while  the  insertion  has  the 
combined  support  of  the  Neutral  and  Alexandrian 
documents  and  on  genealogical  grounds  is  preferable. 
In  Gal.  ii.  12,  where  n%  B,  D",  G,  73,  45,  Origen  read 
fjXOev  against  fjXOov  read  by  A,  C,  D^^'^^^H,  K,  L,  P, 
most  minuscules,  Vulgate  Latin,  Syriac,  Memphitic, 
Armenian,  Gothic  versions  and  fathers,  we  have  one 
of  the  rare  cases  in  which  j<  B  together  unite  with 
D,  G,  in  a  Western  corruption ;  for  corruption  this  is 
certainly  shown  to  be  by  internal  evidence.  Again, 
we  learn  that  the  rule  ascertained  by  internal  evidence 
of  groups  that  i<  B  is  usually  right  is  not  exception- 
less ;  and  that  though  N  and  B  do  not  usually  unite 
in  the  same  Western  readings,  they  do  unite  in  one 
occasionally.     This  is  an  example  of  this  rarity. 

The  difficulty  of  dealing  with  variations  on  genea- 
logical grounds  culminates  in  that  portion  of  the 
Epistles  (Heb.  ix.  14  to  Philemon  inclusive  of  the 
Pastoral  Epistles)  where  B  is  lost.  Shall  we  read, 
for  instance,  ''  priest  "  or  "  high  priest  "  at  Heb.  x.  11  ? 
All  three  of  the  great  editions  read  "priest,"  but 
Tregelles  and  Westcott  and  Hort  put  the  alternative 


THE  METHODS  OF  CRITICISM.       181 

in  the  margin.  For  "priest"  we  have  ts%  D,  E,  K,  L,  17, 

47,  most  minuscules,  Old  Latin  codices,  Yulgate  Latin, 
Memphitic,  the  text  of  the  Harclean  Syriac,  Chryso- 
stom,  Eiithalius,  Theodoret ;  while  for  "  high  priest " 
we  have  A,  C,  P,  31,  37,  46,  73,  74,  80,  137,  and 
sixteen  others,  Peshitto  and  Harclean  Syriac  (with 
asterisk),  Armenian,  ^thiopic,  Cyril  of  Alexandria. 
We  long  for  B  :  if  B  should  stand  by  X,  D,  etc.,  we 
should  have  the  approved  group  x  B  D= Neutral 
+  Western ;  if  it  should  take  its  place  alongside  of 
A,  C,  P  we  could  recognise  it  as  Neutral  versus  X,  D, 
Western.  Internal  evidence  of  readings  and  a  care- 
ful study  of  grouping  inclines  us  to  suppose  the 
former  most  likely  to  be  the  right  solution.  The 
weight  of  genealogical  evidence  is  more  clearly  trace- 
able in  the  case  of  three  interesting  readings  in  the 
first  verse  of  the  same  chapter,  where  {<  P  adds 
avTOdv  (after  Ova-cas)  which  the  Western  class,  A  C  D, 
omits ;  i^  C  reads  as  against  the  Western  class, 
DHL,  which  supports  ah;  and  j{  AC  P  17  67^'=* 
reads  SvvavraL  against  the  Western  DHL,  supporting 
SvvaaaL.  In  no  one  of  these  cases  would  the  presence 
of  B  on  either  side  change  the  determination. 

In  the  Apocalypse,  finally,  genealogical  evidence 
can  as  yet  be  scarcely  employed  at  all,  without  the 
greatest  doubt  and  difficulty. 


CHAPTER  III. 
THE  PRAXIS  OF  CRITICISM. 

IN  the  foregoing  pages  the  available  methods  of 
criticism  have  been  considered  separately,  and 
thus  stock  has  been  taken  of  the  instruments  within 
reach  for  the  performance  of  this  very  delicate  work. 
It  remains  to  inquire  how  these  instruments  are  to 
be  used  in  the  actual  prosecution  of  criticism.  Each 
method  makes  its  own  promises  and  attains  for  us 
its  own  results.  But  we  must  not  permit  ourselves 
to  be  satisfied  with  results  obtained  by  one  method 
only.  The  best  criticism  is  rather  that  which  makes 
the  fullest  use  of  all  the  methods,  and  checks  and 
conditions  and  extends  the  results  of  each  by  the 
results  of  all.  The  value  of  combination  of  the 
methods  is  twofold.  We  thus  obtain  a  system  of 
checks  :  we  may  test  the  results  obtained  by  one 
method  by  the  results  obtained  by  another,  and  by 
repeated  trials  preserve  ourselves  from  error.  And 
we  obtain  what  may  be  called  a  system  of  relays  : 
where  one  method  fails  to  give  a  confident  verdict, 
another  may  be  called  in,  and  thus  their  combination 
may  enable  us  to  carry  criticism  several  stages 
farther  than  would  be  possible  by  one  method  alone. 
The  effect  of  using  a  variety  of  methods,  therefore, 


TEE  PRAXIS  OF  CRITICISM.         183 

is  both  to  extend  the  sphere  which  our  criticism  is 
able  to  reach  and  more  firmly  to  settle  the  text  over 
its  whole  extent.  The  first  rule  for  the  application  of 
these  methods,  therefore,  is  to  apply  them  all.  Let 
no  one  be  slighted ;  let  each  be  used  carefully  and 
independently,  and  the  results  obtained  by  each  care- 
fully compared  together.  When  the  findings  of  the 
various  methods  agree  the  conclusion  is  certain,  and  we 
may  feel  sure  that  we  have  attained  the  autographic 
text.  When  they  disagree,  opportunity  is  given  for 
review  and  revision  of  the  whole  process,  with  the 
not  infrequent  result  of  the  discovery  of  an  error, 
the  correction  of  which  will  harmonise  the  evidence. 
By  this  repeated  and,  if  need  be,  again  repeated 
verification  of  our  processes,  our  conclusions  attain 
ever  firmer  standing;  and  it  is  very  seldom  indeed 
that  the  verdicts  of  the  different  kinds  of  evidence 
may  not  be  brought  into  agreement.  Until  they 
agree  some  doubt  continues  to  cling  to  our  conclu- 
sions; and  the  canon  may  safely  be  formulated  that 
no  reading  can  be  finally  accepted  against  which 
any  form  of  evidence  immovably  protests. 

Experience  further  indicates  to  us  that  it  is  not 
a  matter  of  entire  indifference  in  what  order  we  use 
the  various  methods  of  criticism.  Certain  of  them 
are  more  liable  than  others  to  be  swerved  by  the 
mental  state  of  the  critic,  and  it  is  a  good  rule  to 
begin  with  the  most  objective.  Certain  of  them 
yield  at  best  only  probable  results,  and  it  is  a  good 
rule  to  begin  with  the  most  decisive.  Certain  of 
them  are  largely  negative  in  their  findings,  and  it 
is  a  good  rule  to  begin  with  the  most  positive.     For 


184  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

each  of  these  reasons  it  is  safest  to  begin  with  the 
external  evidence,  and  only  when  its  bearing  has 
been  at  least  provisionally  determined,  to  proceed  to 
the  internal  evidence  of  readings.  To  begin  with 
internal  evidence  of  readings,  especially  with  intrinsic 
evidence,  runs  very  great  risk  of  so  filling  the  mind 
with  the  feeling  that  such  or  such  a  reading  ought 
to  stand  in  the  text,  that  we  may  end  by  unconsciously 
making  it  stand  there,  against  the  evidence.  The 
best  procedure,  and  that  most  likely  to  issue  soundly, 
is  to  begin  with  the  consideration  of  the  genealogical 
evidence,  and  when  its  results  are  obtained,  to  proceed 
to  internal  evidence  of  groups,  and  thence  to  internal 
evidence  of  readings, — usually  in  the  order  of,  first, 
the  transcriptional,  and,  secondly,  the  intrinsic  evi- 
dence. When  genealogical  evidence  speaks  with 
force,  it  yields  a  testimony  which  ranks  above  all 
others  in  ease  and  certainty  of  interpretation,  and 
consequently,  by  beginning  with  it,  we  consider,  first, 
the  surest  evidence,  and  gradually  proceed  to  that 
of  more  doubtful  interpretation,  although  of  no  less 
finality  when  its  meaning  is  certainly  attained. 
After  the  evidence  is  all  in,  our  next  duty  is  to 
compai-e  and  harmonise  the  several  results.  When 
they  are  finally  and  hopelessly  discordant,  nothing 
is  left  us  but  to  consider  whether  the  oldest  trans- 
mitted text  may  not  itself  be  corrupt,  and  thus  differ 
from  the  autographic  text. 

Perhaps  the  best  way  to  exhibit  the  right  pro- 
cedure in  criticism  is  by  means  of  an  example  or  two. 
Let  us  look  at  the  famous  reading  in  Acts  xx.  28, 
where  we  have  the  following  variations  : — 


THE  PRAXIS  OF  CRITICISM.        185 

Kvpiov,  A,  C*,  D,  E,  13,  15,  36,  40,  69,  110,  118,  and 
eight  others;  g  of  the  Old  Latin,  Memphitic,  The- 
baic, margin  of  the  Harclean  Syriac,  Armenian, 
Irena3us  (Latin),  (Athanasius),  Didymus,  Jerome, 
etc. 

6eov,  B,  j<,  68,  lectionary  12,  and  twelve  others;  Vul- 
gate Latin,  (Peshitto),  text  of  the  Harclean  Syriac, 
Epiphaniiis,  Basil,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  (Latin), 
Cyril  of  Alexandria,  etc. 

■XpL(TTov,  ^thiopic,  perhaps  the  Peshitto,  m  of  the  Old 
Latin  (Jeszi  Christi). 

KvpLov  Kttt  Oeov,  C^,  H,  L,  P,  most  minuscules,  Slavonic, 
Theophylact,  etc. 

OeOV  Kttl   KVpLOV,   47. 

KvpLOv  Oeov,  3,  95**'. 

If  we  should  undertake  to  estimate  the  relative 
weight  of  these  groups  of  testimony  by  the  weight 
of  the  separate  codices  included  in  each,  we  might 
well  despaii'  of  ever  reaching  a  conclusion.  The  best 
uncials  are  for  0eov,  the  best  minuscules  and  versions 
for  Kvpiov,  the  most  witnesses  for  Kvpiov  koI  0eov. 
Fortunately  there  is  a  better  way.  Beginning  with 
the  genealogical  evidence,  w^e  sift  out  all  readings  but 
KvpLov  and  ®eov  in  sifting  out  the  Syrian  evidence. 
We  observe  next  that  the  typical  Western  document 
D  stands  on  the  side  of  KvpCov,  and  the  typical 
Neutral  B  on  the  side  of  0eo£i,  and  considering  the 
other  testimony  for  each,  we  see  that  this  much  is 
certain  :  0eov  is  the  Neutral  reading,  and  Kvpiov  the 
Western.  The  most  constant  representatives  of  the 
Alexandrian  class  stand   by  the  side   of  D    and  the 


186  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM. 

Western  witnesses,  in  support  of  Kvptov ;  here  are 
A,  C,  13,  36,  40,  69,  110,  Memph.,  Theb.  Were  not 
all  these  documents  full  of  Western  readings,  we 
might  find  the  Alexandrian  reading  in  Kvptov,  but 
this  is  not  presumable  in  the  mixed  condition  of 
all  these  documents,  and  internal  evidence  of  classes 
gives  us  no  ground  to  believe  that  the  union  of  the 
Western  with  the  chief  Alexandrian  documents  is 
a  union  of  the  two  classes.  We  must  treat  this 
reading,  therefore,  as  a  case  in  which  the  Western 
and  Neutral  classes  oppose  one  another,  and  internal 
evidence  of  classes  forces  us  to  accept  in  such  cases 
the  Neutral  reading  as  presumably  right.  Thus  the 
genealogical  evidence  supports  ®eo9.  On  turning  to 
internal  evidence  of  groups  we  obtain  the  same  result. 
The  high  character  given  to  B  ^^  by  this  process, 
whether  it  stands  alone,  or  in  whatever  combination 
with  other  documents,  affords  strong  ground  for  pre- 
ferring 0eo9,  especially  as  it  has  the  important  further 
support  of  the  Vulgate  Latin  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria. 
This  result  is  cumulative  to  the  former,  so  that  the 
external  evidence  throws  a  very  strong  cumulative 
probability  in  favour  of  ®€ov. 

We  next  appeal  to  the  transcriptional  evidence. 
The  three  readings  Kvpiou  koX  ©eov,  ©eou  koX  Kvptov, 
and  Kvptov  @eov,  are  clearly  all  conflate  readings,  and 
presuppose  the  previous  existence  of  both  the  others. 
They  are,  therefore,  out  of  consideration.  Xpca-Tov 
is  easily  accounted  for  either  as  a  substitution  of 
a  synonym  for  Kvptov  or  @€ov  (for  whichever  word 
w^as  used,  Christ  was  the  person  meant),  or  a  mis- 
reading of  an   abbreviation,    ky    or   ey  being   taken 


THE  PRAXIS  OF  CRITICISM.        187 

for  XY,  or  even  perhaps  kry  (cf.  krn,  1  Cor.  i.  1  of 
Codex  Augiensis)  for  XPY  (D.  ssepe :  cf .  Rom.  vii.  4 
in  N»).  In  either  case  it  is  a  derivative  reading  and 
may  be  neglected.  The  problem  of  transcriptional 
evidence,  then,  is  to  decide  between  the  relative 
originality  of  Yivptov  and  0eov,  the  difference  between 
which  again  concerns  only  a  single  letter :  ky  and  0y. 
As  a  mere  blunder,  either  might  equally  easily  pass 
into  the  other.  They  are  equally  brief.  Either 
reading  would  be  characteristic  enough;  the  phrase 
"  Church  of  God  "  is  as  common  as  the  phrase  "  the 
blood  of  the  Lord."  But  it  is  undeniable  that  ©eov 
is  the  more  difficult  reading,  and  this  commends  it 
to  us  as  probably  genuine.  If  ©eov  were  original,  it 
is  easy  to  see  that  it  would  be  startling,  and  that  the 
scribe's  mind  working  upon  it  might  (scribe-like) 
intrude  its  mental  explanation  into  the  text ;  so 
that  the  very  unusual  character  of  the  phrase  here 
becomes,  transcriptionally  considered,  its  strongest 
commendation.  On  the  other  hand,  if  ^vpiov  were 
the  original  reading,  there  is  no  jag  in  the  phrase 
to  catch  the  mind  of  the  scribe  and  throw  it  off 
its  balance ;  he  would  write  smoothly  on  and  find 
full  satisfaction  in  the  language  as  it  stood.  It 
seems,  indeed,  impossible  to  find  any  reason  for 
altering  'Kvpiov  into  ©eoi)  except  a  dogmatic  one,  and 
if  dogmatic  considerations  be  brought  into  the  case 
they  certainly  authenticate  ©eov  rather.  For  a  dog- 
matic alteration  of  Kvptov  into  ©eov  could  have  no 
incitement  except  a  cold  determination  to  manufac- 
ture a  proof  text :  there  is  nothing  offensive  to  any 
one  in  the  reading  Kvpiov,  and  nothing   that   could 


188  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM. 

suggest  alteration.  But  0co{)  might  give  offence  to 
many :  to  extreme  Arians,  and  to  the  orthodox  anti- 
Patripassians  alike,  and  even  to  simple  orthodox  souls 
whose  philosophical  way  of  looking  at  theological 
language  would  be  offended  at  this  sharp  paradox. 
Like  language  horrified  Athanasius  himself  {Cont. 
ApoUinar.,  ii.  11,  12,  13).  If  dogmatic  alteration 
has  taken  place,  therefore,  it  certainly  has  softened 
the  original  ©eov  into  the  less  startling  Kvpcov.  And 
from  every  point  of  view  the  transcriptional  evidence 
supports  ©eov. 

Does  intrinsic  evidence  unalterably  oppose  this 
conclusion,  commended  alike  by  genealogical  evidence, 
internal  evidence  of  groups,  and  transcriptional  evi- 
dence ?  For  this  is  the  way  in  which  this  branch  of 
evidence  may  be  fairly  approached,  seeing  that  it 
delivers  negative  judgments  with  far  more  force  than 
positive  ones.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  reading 
®eov  fails  to  accord  with  the  contextual  flow  of 
thought  or  the  rhetoric.  There  is  rather  a  fine  pro- 
priety in  it,  and  a  solemn  and  moving  motive  lies 
beneath  it.  Paul  incites  the  elders  to  more  heedful 
attention  to  their  duties  to  their  flock  by  the  con- 
siderations— (1)  that  it  w^as  the  Holy  Ghost  who 
made  them  bishops,  and  (2)  that  it  was  the  blood  of 
God  Himself  that  bought  the  flock  now  placed  under 
their  care.  It  is  said,  however,  that  it  is  un-Pauline 
to  call  Christ  God.  The  argument  is  a  merely  verbal 
one,  and  hence  of  small  weight.  And  it  is  easy  to 
point  to  Bom.  ix.  5  and  Titus  ii.  13,  where  Paul 
does  call  Jesus  God ;  and  when  it  is  objected  that 
these  are  disputed  passages,  it  is  just  to  remind  the 


THE  PRAXIS  OF  CRITICISM.         189 

objector  that  this  will  exclude  his  original  statement 
as  well  as  our  rebuttal  of  it.  Apart  from  such 
passages,  however,  it  is  very  easy  to  show  that  Paul 
held  a  very  exalted  doctrine  of  Christ's  person,  and 
might  as  well  as  John  (John  i.  1)  have  given  Him 
the  name  which  his  descriptions  imply;  and  this  is 
enough  to  set  aside  the  force  of  the  objection  that 
the  unwontedness  of  the  phrase  is  fatal  to  its  genuine- 
ness. This  very  unwontedness  is  from  the  tran- 
scriptional point  of  view  its  best  proof  of  genuineness, 
and  it  is  not  the  part  of  intrinsic  evidence  to  pare 
down  the  unusual.  The  phrase  would  oppose  its  own 
genuineness  only  if  it  contradicted  Paul's  otherwise 
known  opinions,  or  at  least  were  not  only  unexampled 
but  inexplicable.  But  since  this  same  Paul  has  else- 
where declared  that  Christ  was  begotten  before  every 
creature,  we  need  find  nothing  to  stumble  at  in  his 
applying  to  Him  here,  where  the  context  bids  us  look 
for  a  solemn  enhancing  of  the  greatness  of  the  gift 
of  His  blood,  the  name  which  is  elsewhere  implied. 
The  effect  of  these  considerations  is  not  merely  nega- 
tive ;  it  is  corroborative  of  the  other  evidence.  And 
since  all  forms  of  evidence  unite  to  commend  ©eov 
here,  their  cumulative  effect  makes  it  certain  that  this 
is  the  original  reading. 

Our  next  example  shall  be  the  very  important 
variation  that  is  found  at  John  i.  18.  Here  the 
chief  rival  readings  are  : — 

o  fjLovoyevrj^  utos :  A,  C^,  E,  F,  G,  H,  K,  M,  S,  U,  Y,  X, 
r,  A,  A,  n,  and  all  minuscules  except  33 ;  the 
Old  and  Vulgate  Latin,  the  Curetonian  Syriac, 


190  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

the  text  of  the  Harelean  Syriac,  the  Jernsalem 
Syriac,  the  Armenian  in  Piatt's  edition  [Irenjieus 
(Latin)],  Eiisebiiis,  Athanasius,  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia,  Chrysostom,  etc. 
/jLovoyevrjs  Oeo? :  ^{,  B,  C''%  L,  33  (33  prefixing  o) ;  the 
Memphitic,  Peshitto  Sjrriac,  margin  of  the  Har- 
elean Syriac,  the  Yalentinians  [Irenfeus  (Latin)], 
Clement,  Origen,  Epiphanius,  Didymus,  Basil, 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  etc. 

Genealogically,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  6  fj-ovoyevr]? 
vLos  is  the  reading  of  the  Syrian  class,  and  when  the 
Syrian  testimony  is  sifted  out,  of  the  typical  Western 
witnesses.  D  is  defective  here;  but  the  union  of 
A  X,  Old  Latin  and  Curetonian  Syriac,  cannot  well 
have  more  than  one  meaning.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Neutral  documents  (B,  n)  unite  with  the  most 
constant  Alexandrian  documents  (C,  L,  33,  Mem- 
phitic),  and  the  Alexandrian  fathers,  for  fjiovoy€vr]<s 
0€O9,  which  thus  seems  to  have  the  combined  support 
of  the  Neutral  and  Alexandrian  classes.  Internal 
evidence  of  classes  very  strongly  commends  the 
Neutral-Alexandrian  readings,  and  genealogical  evi- 
dence thus  gives  a  very  strong  verdict  for  ixovoyevr)<s 
©€09.  Internal  evidence  of  groups  casts  its  weighty 
vote  in  the  same  scale, — as  B  N,  supported  by  an 
additional  body  of  important  witnesses,  advises  us. 
So  that  again  external  evidence  is  cumulatively  set 
in  favour  of  one  reading, — fjLovoy€vr]<5  0eo9. 

The  chief  divergent  words  in  the  two  readings  differ 
from  one  another  in  this  case,  too,  by  a  single  letter, 
since  they  stand  in  the  MSS.  yc  and  Go  ;  and  transcrip- 


THE  PRAXIS  OF  CRITICISM.        191 

tionally  either  one  of  these  might  very  readily  pass  into 
the  other  by  a  mere  scribe's  bhmder.  The  case  is  com- 
plicated, however,  by  the  connection  of  the  insertion 
or  omission  of  the  6  nine  letters  back  with  the  varia- 
tion in  the  main  ^vord.  This  seems  to  exclude  a  mere 
error  of  the  eye  as  the  cause  of  the  change  ;  and  dog- 
matic considerations  stand  in  this  case  just  as  in  Acts 
XX.  28.  The  insertion  of  ©eog  for  dogmatic  reasons 
would  be  a  barefaced  manufacture  of  a  proof  text,  as 
the  reading  uto?  could  give  offence  to  no  one,  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  reading  0eos  might  be  an  offence 
to  a  great  body  of  readers.  If  dogmatic  considera- 
tions, therefore,  are  responsible  for  either  reading, 
surely  they  have  produced  the  softening  vtos,  and  not 
the  startling  ©eo?.  The  canon  that  the  harder  reading 
is  to  be  preferred,  again,  commends  ©eos.  If  o  . .  .  vtos 
stood  here  originally,  there  would  be  nothing  to  attract 
a  scribe's  attention  or  to  suggest  a  change.  "The 
only-begotten  Son  "  is  a  sufficiently  common  phrase  in 
John  to  give  itself  readily  to  the  pen  when  /xoi/oyej/->js 
is  being  written.  On  the  other  hand,  "  only  begotten 
God  "  is  unique ;  if  the  scribe  observed  it,  his  mind 
might  unconsciously  transmute  it  into  the  more 
familiar  phraseology,  and  if  he  merely  glanced  at  the 
phrase  he  might  readily  take  it  for  the  more  familiar 
"  only  begotten  Son."  In  every  way,  thus,  transcrip- 
tional evidence  commends  fiovoyevr}?  ©cos. 

Intrinsically,  either  reading,  had  we  known  it  alone, 
would  be  satisfactory  enough.  "  The  only  begotten 
Son "  is  a  Johannean  phrase,  and  John  might  be 
expected  to  use  it  here  too.  But  to  call  the  Logos 
"  God  "  is  also  Johannean,  and  '^  only  begotten  God  " 


192  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM. 

only  unites  here  the  two  predicates  which  had  just 
before  been  assigned  to  the  Logos  (0eos  ver.  1,  and 
fxovoyev^s  ver.  14).  When  the  sequence  of  the  thought 
in  the  prologue  is  carefully  examined,  a  fine  appro- 
priateness for  "only  begotten  God"  just  here  emerges, 
which  goes  far  towards  authenticating  that  reading. 
John  describes  to  us,  first,  the  Word  in  His  eternal 
relations  (verse  1) ;  then,  the  Word  in  His  relations  to 
creation  (verses  2 — 13) ;  and  then  the  revelation  of  God 
through  the  Word  (14 — 18) — culminating  with  putting 
into  words  in  verse  18  what  was  already  implied  in 
the  facts,  that  the  Word  was  God  (ver.  1),  and  yet 
Himself  became  flesh  (ver.  14), — viz.,  that  this  revela- 
tion was  self -revelation.  If  no  one  has  seen  God  at  any 
time,  who  is  His  revealer  if  not  the  Word  who  was 
God  (ver.  1),  and  only  begotten  (ver.  14) — God  only 
begotten  (ver.  18)  ?  The  intrinsic  evidence,  thus,  not 
only  fails  to  oppose  the  reading  commended  alike 
by  genealogical  evidence,  internal  evidence  of  groups, 
and  transcriptional  evidence,  but  even  corroborates  it. 
And  again  we  may  accept  the  fourfold  support  as 
giving  us  a  reading  which  is  certainly  the  original 
one. 

It  is  natural  to  take  as  our  next  example  the 
famous  reading  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  Here  three  varia- 
tions demand  our  attention  : — 

$€o<s:  C  D'KLP  and  296  minuscules;  [Harclean 
Syriac],  Georgian  and  Sclavonic  versions  ;  Pseudo- 
Dionysius,  Didymus,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  [Diodorus] 
Chrysostom,  Theodoret  [Cyril  of  Alexandria],  etc. 

os:  t<  (A*)  (C-)  G,  17,  73  [181]  and  lectionaries  12, 


THE  PRAXIS  OF  CRITICISM.         193 

85,  m-,  [Memphitic],  [Thebaic],  [Peshitto], 
Harclean  Syriac's  margin,  Gothic,  [^thiopic], 
[Armenian],  [Origen]  Epiphanius,  (Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia),  etc. 
o :  D,  Zahn's  Codex  {^Supplementum  Clementinum,  p. 
277),  Old  Latin,  Vulgate,  [Peshitto],  [Harclean 
Syriac],  [Memphitic],  [Thebaic],  [^thiopic], 
[Armenian],  Latin  fathers,  etc. 

The  greatest  difficulty  that  faces  the  critic  here  lies 
in  the  uncertainty  that  attends  so  much  of  the  evidence. 
Expert  palaeographers  differ  diametrically  as  to  what 
the  reading  of  A  is,  whether  ec  or  oc  (0eos  or  os),  and 
in  the  present  worn  state  of  the  MS.  decision  by 
renewed  examination  is  impossible.  The  same  kind 
of  controversy  has  been  held  as  to  the  reading  of  C, 
although  apparently  with  much  less  reason ;  and 
although  we  have  inclosed  C  also  in  doubting 
parentheses  we  entertain  no  great  doubt  as  to  its 
support  of  o?.  A  large  proportion  of  the  versions  so 
deliver  their  testimony  as  to  make  it  indeterminable 
whether  they  read  os  or  o ;  they  have  been  placed  in 
both  lists  inclosed  in  square  brackets.  Codex  181  has 
also  been  inclosed  in  brackets,  as  its  existence  has  been 
doubted.  Codex  73  has  been  personally  examined  by 
Dr.  SchaiF,  and  certainly  reads  os. 

On  applying  genealogical  considerations  to  this 
evidence,  all  the  testimony  that  is  at  all  certain  for 
0€o's  sifts  out  with  the  sifting  out  of  the  Syrian  testi- 
mony. This  reading  appears  in  no  father  until  late 
in  the  fourth  century,  in  no  version  until  at  least  the 
seventh  century,  and  in  no  MSS.  until  long  after  the 

13 


194  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

Syrian  text  had  become  everywhere  the  virtual 
textus  receptus.  If  A  be  adjudged  to  read  ©eo?  the 
determination  of  its  Syrian  character  would  not  be 
affected  j  and  the  very  late  character  of  all  other  wit- 
ness for  it  is  itself  an  argument  against  the  likelihood 
of  either  A  or  C  having  ever  had  this  reading,  and 
much  more  against  both  having  it.  On  genealogical 
grounds,  thus,  0eos  is  at  once  set  aside,  and  the  choice 
rests  between  os  and  o.  It  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that 
o  is  Western;  while  the  attestation  5<  (A)  C  17  gives  os 
the  appearance  of  having  the  support  of  the  Neutral 
and  Alexandrian  classes.  The  doubt  that  hangs  over 
the  testimony  of  the  versions  is  of  the  less  moment 
because  of  the  certainty  of  the  Latin  reading,  which 
enables  us  to  identify  the  Western  type ;  and  the 
absence  of  B  is  here  of  no  importance,  as  its  presence 
on  either  side  would  not  affect  our  determination. 
Genealogical  evidence  thus  very  pointedly  commends  os. 
Internal  ev^idence  of  groups  corroborates  this  finding. 
N  A  C  or  j<  C  alone  is  one  of  the  best  groups  attain- 
able in  this  part  of  the  New  Testament,  and  although 
the  absence  of  B  disturbs  us  here,  yet  the  transcrip- 
tional evidence  comes  to  our  help  by  making  it  impro- 
bable that  o  can  be  the  correct  reading,  and  hence 
enabling  us  to  account  all  the  testimony  for  both  os 
and  o  combined  against  that  for  0eo's.  The  result  is 
to  condemn  0eos  hopelessly. 

The  transcriptional  evidence  is  thus  in  a  true  sense 
the  key  to  the  problem.  As  between  os  and  o,  the 
succession  of  i-ound  letters,  lONOcecjjA,  would  render 
the  change  easy  either  way,  whether  by  mistaking  the  c 
for  the  succeeding  e,  or  the  already  written  c  for  the 


THE  PRAXIS  OF  CPdTICISM.        195 

half-finislied  e.  Unless,  however,  6'?  were  original,  it 
could  never  have  been  A\T.4tten  except  by  a  mere 
blunder,  and  could  scarcely  escape  the  eye  of  the  "cor- 
rector "  -f  while  o  could  easily  be  passed  over  on  account 
of  the  easy  sense  which  it  introduced,  and  would  be 
apt  to  be  written  by  the  scribe  after  the  neuter  ante- 
cedent fxvoTYJpLov.  As  between  6<s  and  0eos  the  same 
canon  of  the  harder  reading  decides  for  os.  Here  the 
difference  is  only  in  the  fine  lines  that  distinguish  the 
o  from  e  and  mark  the  contraction  :  9c  and  oc ;  and 
thus  one  reading  may  easily  pass  into  the  other.  But 
again,  as  ©eos  is  grammatically  easy,  forming  a  proper 
apposition  for  ixva-Trjpiov,  while  os  is  grammatically 
hard,  nothing  but  a  mere  blunder  could  have 
originated  os,  while  the  difficulty  of  the  sense  would 
have  operated  as  an  incitement  to  the  conscious  or 
unconscious  transmutation  of  os  into  0ebs. 

Unless,  then,  intrinsic  evidence  immovably  protests 
against  os  it  is  to  be  accepted  as  the  true  reading.  It 
is  indisputable  that  it  introduces  a  difficult  reading, 
and  the  difficulty  seems  to  disappear  with  the  change 
to  o  or  ©eos ;  on  these  facts  the  transcriptional  evidence 
founded  its  preference  for  os.  But  does  the  difficulty 
rise  to  so  high  a  pitch  that  os  is  impossible  ?  The 
difficulty  is  wholly  grammatical,  and  the  grammar  is 
not  made  intolerable  by  os,  but  only  relatively  hard. 
Moreover,  ©eo's,  while  apparently  reducing  everything 
to  an  easy  smoothness,  introduces  difficulties  of  its  own. 
It  accords  well  with  the  first  of  the  following  clauses, 
but  immediately  becomes  an  unnatural  antecedent  to 
the  next,  and  continues  so  throughout.  It  is  thus  a 
fair  sample  of  scribes'  work,  and  combines  the  surface 


196  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

appearance  of  fitness  with  a  real  unfitness  for  its 
place.  When,  next,  the  antithetic  and  rhythmical 
character  of  the  succeeding  phrases  is  observed,  sug- 
gesting that  we  have  here  a  fragment  of  a  hymn, 
which  would  allow  us  to  suppose  that  the  gramma- 
tical antecedent  to  os  is  to  be  sought  in  the  hymn 
rather  than  in  this  context,  or,  better,  that  the  first 
clause  is  the  subject  followed  by  five  predicates ;  the 
intrinsic  evidence,  so  far  from  immovably  opposing  os, 
appears  to  be  slightly  in  its  favour.  No  doubt,  o 
would  be  intrinsically  unobjectionable,  but  it  is  not 
preferable  to  os  save  in  the  strict  and  narrow 
grammatical  sense ;  and  intrinsic  evidence  readily 
gives  way  here  to  transcriptional  evidence  in  its  strong 
preference  fur  os.  In  this  reading,  therefore,  difficult 
as  it  at  first  seems,  all  varieties  of  evidence  come 
finally  to  agreement  upon  a  single  reading  os, — which 
we  may,  therefore,  confidently  accept. 

Our  next  example  shall  be  one  of  those  few  readings 
which  affect  large  sections  of  the  New  Testament 
text :  Shall  we  insert  or  omit  the  famous  pericope  of 
the  adulteress,  John  vii.  53  — viii.  11 1  The  evidence  is 
as  follows : — 

Insert :  D,  F,  G,  II,  K,  U,  r  (also  E,  M,  S,  A,  n,  etc., 
with  asterisk  or  obelus),  more  than  three  hun- 
dred minuscules  ;  many  codices  known  to  Jerome ; 
the  Latin  MSS.  b,  c,  e,  ff2,  g,  j,  1 ;  the  Vulgate 
Latin,  Jerusalem  Syriac,  ^thiopic ;  "  Apostolical 
Constitutions,"  Nicon,  Eiithymius,  Ambrose, 
Augustine,  Jerome,  and  later  Latin  fathers. 

Omit :  N*,  (A),  B,  (C),  L,  T,  X,  (A) ;  codices  known  to 


THE  PRAXIS  OF  CRITICISM.         197 

Jerome,  22,  33,  81,  131,  157,  and  many  other 
minuscules;  the  Latin  MSS.  a,  f,  q,  rhe, 
and  others  known  to  Jerome  and  Augustine, 
Curetonian,  Peshitto  and  Harclean  Syriac,  best 
MSS.  of  the  Memphitic,  Thebaic,  Armenian, 
Gothic;  (Origen),  (Eusebius),  (Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia),  (Apollinaris),   Chrysostom,  etc. 

On  sifting  out  the  Syrian  witnesses,  the  testimony 
for  insertion  plainly  becomes  merely  Western,  includ- 
ing D  and  the  European  Latin ;  but  not  certainly 
the  African  Latin,  although  e  contains  it,  inasmuch  as 
the  early  Latin  Fathers  are  strangely  silent  about  this 
passage.  The  testimony  for  omission  includes  every- 
thing typical  in  both  the  Neutral  and  Alexandrian 
classes.  The  only  difficulty  that  meets  us  in  deter- 
mining the  genealogical  classes  arises  when  we  try  to 
trace  the  Syrian  class.  Most  of  the  later  documents 
contain  the  section,  but  it  cannot  be  traced  in  the 
Antiochian  and  early  Constantinopolitan  fathers. 
Whence  it  seems  that  this  pericope  found  no  place 
in  the  Syrian  revision,  but  has  passed  into  the  Syrian 
text  from  the  Western,  say,  at  some  time  about  the 
seventh  century.  Whatever  its  relation  to  the  Syrian 
class,  however,  the  section  is  strongly  discredited  by 
genealogical  evidence.  The  finding  of  internal  evi- 
dence of  groups,  which  is  very  strongly  given,  is  in  the 
same  direction.  So  that  the  external  evidence  is  solidly 
arrayed  against  the  genuineness  of  the  section. 

Transcriptional  evidence  is  generally  ambiguous  in 
readings  of  great  length ;  insertion  or  omission  must 
have  been  alike  a  mere  blunder.     It  seems  difficult  to 


198  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

account  for  such  a  blunder  as  its  omission,  however, 
except  by  some  such  accident  as  the  loss  of  a  leaf  or 
two  from  the  exemplar.  Mr.  J.  R.  Harris  has  shown 
that  the  matter  of  this  section  corresponds,  in  extent, 
very  exactly  to  two  leaves  of  what  seems  to  be  a  form 
which  might  very  well  belong  to  an  ancestor  of  B. 
But  he  also  shows  that  it  would  not  all  have  fallen  on 
foar  pages,  if  belonging  to  the  present  place  in  John. 
On  the  other  hand,  its  insertion  may  readily  be 
accounted  for  as  an  incorporation  into  the  text  of  an 
explanatory  gloss  drawn  from  some  extraneous  source. 
When  we  add  that  some  codices  place  it  at  the  end  of 
John's  Gospel  and  some  after  Luke  xxi.,  instead  of 
here,  it  becomes  still  more  probable  that  we  are  deal- 
ing with  phenomena  of  insertion  rather  than  of 
omission.  On  the  whole,  the  transcriptional  evidence, 
w^hile  able  to  accept  the  passage  if  otherwise  com- 
mended, is  itself  rather  in  favour  of  its  omission. 

Intrinsic  evidence  is  more  strongly  so.  For  the 
fact  that  the  stoiy  is  worthy  of  our  Lord  and  bears 
every  mark  of  historic  truth  has  no  bearing  on  the 
question  whether  it  is  part  of  John's  Gospel ;  any  true 
story  of  Jesus  would  be  beautiful,  especially  if  it  came 
ultimately  from  the  apostolic  circle.  While,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  style  and  diction  are  very  unlike 
John's  writing  elsewhere ;  several  words  are  used  which 
seem  strange  to  his  vocabulary ;  and  some  matters  of 
detail  fit  ill  with  the  context, — e.g.,  Jesus  is  left 
alone  with  the  w^oman  at  verse  9,  and  yet  addresses 
"  them"  at  ver.  12,  and  the  Pharisees  answer  at  ver.  13. 
This  last  fact  might  be  of  small  moment,  except  that 
in  these  very  matters  verses  12  and  13  fit  on  directly 


TEE  PRAXIS  OF  ORITICISM.         199 

with  verses  45 — 52  of  the  seventh  chapter,  and  so  the 
omission  of  the  disputed  verses  restores  verses  12  sq. 
to  a  context  with  which  they  seem  to  belong.  Nor  is 
this  close  connection  of  verses  12  sq.  with  the  seventh 
chapter  merely  verbal ;  the  presence  of  the  pericope 
of  the  adulteress  seriously  disturbs  the  progress  of 
a  discourse  the  order  of  which  would  be  admirable 
without  it.  This  intrinsic  evidence  is  so  strong  that 
it  would  almost  cast  doubt  on  this  section  of  itself; 
and  in  union  with  the  external  evidence,  and  with 
the  allowance  of  the  transcriptional,  it  forces  us  to 
omit  the  passage.  Here  too,  therefore,  we  may  feel 
that  we  have  attained  the  original  text. 

It  is  appropriate  to  draw  our  next  example  from 
the  only  other  various  reading  that  involves  so  large 
a  section, — that  which  concerns  the  last  twelve 
verses  of  Mark.  The  evidence  may  be  stated  as 
follows  : — 

Insert:  A,  C,  A,  D,  X,  %  $,  V,  etc.,  1,  33,  69,  and 
nearly  all  minuscules;  all  Old  Latin  codices 
except  k ;  the  Yulgate  Latin  ;  the  Curetonian, 
Peshitto,  Harclean  and  Jerusalem  Syriac ;  the 
Memphitic,  and  Gothic  ;  Justin,  Tatian, 
Irenaeus,  [Hippolytus],  Macarius  Magnus ;  and 
post-Nicene  fathers  generally. 

Omit :  B,  n,  L,  22,  743  (on  the  authority  of  the  Abbe 
Martin) ;  codex  k  of  the  Latin ;  the  Armenian,  and 
^thiopic;  [Clement],  [Origen],  Eusebius,  [Cyril  of 
Jerusalem],  and,  among  the  post-Nicene  fathers, 
the  vTvoOea-i^,  Jerome,  Victor  of  Antioch,  Severus 
of   Antioch.     Also  such   minuscules  as   15,   20, 


200  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

300,  199,  1,  206,  209,  which  preserve  knowledge 

of  the  doubt. 
Some  words  are  necessary  in   explanation  of  this 
evidence.     N  simply  omits    the  passage.     B  omits  it, 
but  leaves  a  blank  space,  which  is  apparently  intended 
for  it;  this  seems  to  prove  that  the  exemplar  from 
which  B   was   copied  lacked    these  verses,  but   that 
they  were  known  to  B's  scribe.     As  the  weight  of  B 
is  due  to  the  character  of   its  exemplar,  not  to  the 
knowledge  of  its  scribe,  this  does  not  affect  B's  testi- 
mony.    L  closes  at  verse  8,  but  adds  at  the  top  of 
the  next  column  :  "  These  also  are  somewhere  current : 
*  But  all  things  that  were  commanded,  they  immedi- 
ately announced   to  those  about   Peter.     And  after 
this  Jesus  also  Himself,  from  the  east  even  to  the 
west,  sent  forth  by  them  the  sacred  and  incorruptible 
proclamation  of   eternal  salvation.'     These  are  also, 
however,  current,  after  '  For  they  were  afraid.'  "... 
And  then  our  usual  twelve  verses  are  inserted.     The 
existence  of  this  shorter  conclusion  (to  which  L  gives 
the   preference)  is   a  fortiori   evidence   against    the 
longer  one.     For  no  one  doubts  that  this  shorter  con- 
clusion is  a  spurious  invention  of  the  scribes  ;  but  it 
would  not  have  been  invented,  save  to  fill  the  blank. 
L's  witness  is,  then,  to  MSS.  older  than  itself,  which 
not  only  did   not  have  our    twelve  verses,  but  had 
invented  another  conclusion  in  their  place.     The  Abb6 
Martin  tells  us  of  another  codex,  which  he  numbers 
743,  that  repeats  the  arrangement  of  L.     Codex  22 
closes  the  Gospel  at  verse  8,  marking  it  as  "  The  End," 
and  then  adds  :  "  In  some  of  the  copies  the  Evangelist 
finishes  at  this  point ;  in  many,  however,  these  also 


THE  PRAXIS  OF  CRITICISM.         201 

are  current,"  .  .  .  and  inserts  our  verses  9 — 20, 
closing  again  with  "  The  End."  The  Old  Latin  MS. 
k  contains  the  shorter  conclusion  only,  and  hence  is 
a  specially  strong  witness  to  the  omission  of  our 
twelve  verses.  The  Thebaic  version  might  possibly 
be  added  to  the  witnesses  for  insertion,  but  we  have 
from  it  only  a  mediocre  paraphrase  of  verse  20,  and 
it  cannot  be  confidently  determined  what  disposition 
was  made  of  it. 

Proceeding  now  to  estimate  the  evidence,  we  note 
first  that  the  Syrian  text  inserts  the  passage,  and, 
when  the  Syrian  witnesses  are  sifted  out,  it  is  left 
with  Western  (D,  Latin,  Curetonian  Syriac),  and 
apparently  Alexandrian  (0,  A,  33,  Memphitic)  wit- 
nesses only,  and  since  all  Alexandrian  witnesses  are 
full  of  Western  readings,  this  means  with  Western 
witnesses  only.  For  omission  we  have  the  Neutral 
witnesses  (B,  x)  with  L,  22,  and  other  support. 
Where  the  Alexandrian  reading  stands  we  cannot 
discover  ;  but  on  appealing  to  internal  evidence  of 
classes  the  apparent  conjunction  of  Western  and 
Alexandrian  witnesses  is  discredited,  and  we  must 
decide  that  the  genealogical  evidence  is  in  favour  of 
omission.  L  may  represent  the  Alexandrian  text  and 
k  the  primitive  Western ;  and  in  the  case  of  either 
of  these  hj^otheses,  the  verdict  for  omission  receives 
additional  strength.  Internal  evidence  of  gTOups, 
which  throws  strong  favour  on  B  n*,  only  confirms 
genealogical  evidence,  and  we  have  the  whole  weight 
of  external  evidence  for  omission. 

The  transcriptional  evidence  leads  to  the  same 
conclusion.     No  good    account  can    be  given   of  the 


202  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM. 

omission  of  these  verses.  To  suppose  that  they  were 
omitted  in  a  harmonic  interest  is  to  presuppose  a 
freedom  and  boldness  in  dealing  with  the  Gospel 
narratives  never  elsewhere  experienced,  and  that  to 
serve  a  purpose  far  more  easily  attained.  To  suppose 
the  omission  to  have  arisen  from  the  misunderstand- 
ing of  a  note  placed  here  to  mark  the  end  of  a  liturgical 
lesson  is  to  assign  a  greater  age  to  the  present  lesson- 
system  and  to  this  method  of  marking  MSS.  than 
can  be  proved  for  either.  To  suppose  that  a  leaf  was 
lost  from  the  end  of  the  Gospel,  containing  these 
verses,  will  best  of  all  account  for  their  omission,  but 
will  not  account  for  its  wide  distribution,  nor  for  the 
failure  of  the  beginning  of  the  next  Gospel,  on  the 
other  side  of  the  leaf,  to  get  lost  too.  Mark  stands 
very  rarely  at  the  end  of  the  book  of  the  Gospels,  and 
the  loss  of  a  leaf  early  enough  to  affect  the  ancestors 
of  5<,  of  B,  of  L,  and  of  Western  k,  must  have  affected 
nearly  all  MSS.  as  well.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
insertion  of  such  an  ending  is  transcriptionally  easy 
to  account  for.  The  abrupt  ending  of  verse  8  de- 
manded something  more.  That  the  scribes  felt  this 
is  evidenced  by  their  invention  of  the  certainly  spurious 
shorter  ending.  Why  should  not  other  scribes  have 
sought  and  found  another  tolerably  fitting  close 
for  the  Gospel  ?  And  that  this  ending  does  not  be- 
long here,  but  fits  its  place  only  tolerably,  is  clear  on 
careful  examination.  The  tear  at  verse  8  is  not 
mended  by  verses  9 — 20.  Only  Matthew  and  Luke 
tell  us  what  actually  happened  after  verse  8.  And  if 
verse  8  demands  a  different  succeeding  context,  verses 
9 — 20  no  less    need  a  different  preceding  one  from 


THE  PRAXIS  OF  CRITICISM.        203 

that  here  furnished  them.  Jesus  is  presumed  to  be 
the  subject  in  verse  9 ;  but  the  subject  that  would  be 
taken  over  from  verse  8  is  the  women.  The  "  but " 
that  opens  verse  9  does  not  introduce  anything  ad- 
versative to  verse  8.  The  new  specification  of  time 
in  verse  8  is  surprising,  after  verse  2.  "  First  "  looks 
strange  here.  The  identifying  description  of  Mary 
Magdalene  in  verse  9  is  very  remarkable  after  verse  1. 
Every  appearance,  in  a  word,  goes  to  show  that  the 
author  of  the  Gospel  did  not  write  verses  9 — 20  as  the 
conclusion  of  the  narrative  begun  in  verses  1 — 8. 
And  if  so,  the  transcriptional  evidence  that  makes  an 
insertion  here  easier  to  conceive  of  than  an  omission 
has  full  play,  and  we  can  recognise  verses  9 — 20  as 
only  another  way  of  filling  up  the  gap  left  by  the 
unfinished  appearance  of  verse  8.  The  intrinsic  evi- 
dence is  not  fully  stated,  however,  until  we  add  that 
there  are  peculiarities  of  style  and  phraseology  in 
verses  9 — 20  which  render  it  easy  to  believe  that  the 
author  of  the  Gospel  did  not  write  these  verses. 

The  combined  force  of  external  and  internal  evi- 
dence excludes  this  section  from  a  place  in  Mark's 
Gospel  quite  independently  of  the  critic's  ability  to 
account  for  the  unfinished  look  of  Mark's  Gospel  as 
it  is  left  or  for  the  origin  of  this  section  itself.  The 
nature  of  the  matter  included  in  them,  and  the  way 
they  are  fitted  to  the  Gospel,  seem,  however,  to  forbid 
the  supposition  that  these  verses  were  composed  for 
this  place  by  any  scribe.  It  is  nearly  as  hard  to  be- 
lieve that  anybody  wrote  them  for  this  place  as  it  is 
that  Mark  did.  They  seem  to  be  a  fragment  rather, 
adopted  from  some  other  writing  and  roughly  fitted 


204  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

on  to  the  end  of  Mark.  This  fragment  is  certainly 
as  old  as  the  first  third  of  the  second  century,  and 
may — as  may  also  the  pericope  of  the  adulteress  in- 
serted into  John — be  taken  from  the  book  of  illustra- 
tions of  the  Gospel  narrative  which  Papias  composed, 
apparently  about  120  a.d.  Neither  is  it  necessary  for 
the  critic  to  be  able  to  give  an  account  of  the  mutilated 
condition  of  Mark's  Gospel.  To  recognise  that  this 
fragment  does  not  belong  at  the  end  of  it  does  not 
make  it  any  more  mutilated  than  it  was  before.  The 
evident  incompleteness  of  verse  8  is  evidence  against 
the  opinion  that  the  Gospel  was  intended  to  close  at 
that  point ;  but  no  evidence  that  just  this  conclusion, 
— which  does  not  fit  on  to  verse  8  nor  complete  it, 
nor  the  subject  then  in  hand, — was  the  conclusion 
intended.  Why  Mark's  Gospel  has  come  down  to  us 
incomplete,  we  do  not  know.  Was  Mark  interrupted 
at  this  point  by  arrest  or  martyrdom  before  he  finished 
his  book  ?  Was  a  page  lost  off  the  autograph  itself  ? 
Or  do  all  of  our  witnesses  carry  us  back  only  to  a 
mutilated  copy  short  of  the  autograph,  the  common 
original  of  them  all,  so  that  our  oldest  transmitted 
text  is  sadly  different  from  the  original  text  ?  There 
is  room  for  investigation  here ;  but,  apparently,  no 
room  for  accepting  this  conclusion  for  the  one  that 
Mark  wrote  or  intended  to  write. 

We  have  purposely  chosen  all  these  examples  of 
sucli  a  sort  that  the  evidence  can  readily  be  seen  to  be 
harmonious  through  all  the  methods.  But  we  have  also 
purposely  placed  last  among  them  a  case  in  which  the 
intrinsic  evidence,  while  uniting  with  the  other  forms 
of  evidence  in  determining  this  reading,  is  left  still 


THE  PRAXIS  OF  CRITICISM.        205 

somewhat  unsatisfied  by  its  determination.  It  opposes 
the  acceptance  of  the  last  twelve  verses  of  Mark  as 
genuine :  but  it  no  less  opposes  the  acceptance  of 
verse  8  as  the  end  of  the  Gospel.  It  consents  that 
this  is  not  the  limb  that  belongs  here,  but  it  no  less 
insists  that  some  limb  does  belong  here.  This  may- 
remind  us  that  the  work  of  the  critic  may  not  always 
be  done  when  he  has  passed  on  all  the  readings  which 
have  been  transmitted  to  us  in  our  extant  witnesses. 
It  is  at  least  conceivable  that  the  oldest  transmitted 
text  may  not  yet  be  the  autographic  text,  or  in  other 
words,  that  all  our  extant  documents  spring  from  a 
common  original  that  is  removed  by  a  few  copyings 
from  the  autograph,  and  may,  therefore,  contain  some 
errors.  Of  course,  this  is  not  to  be  assumed  to  be  the 
fact ;  but  neither  is  it  to  be  assumed  not  to  be  the 
fact.  This,  too,  is  to  be  settled  only  on  trial  and  by 
the  evidence.  And  here  it  will  be  of  use  to  us  to 
remember  that  the  office  of  textual  criticism  is  not 
merely  to  restore  a  text  where  it  is  know^n  to  be  in 
error,  but  to  examine  all  texts  in  every  part  in  order 
to  certify  their  correctness  or  discover  that  and  where 
they  are  corrupt.  Where  the  several  documents  give 
various  readings  the  presence  of  error  in  some  of  them 
is  already  demonstrated,  and  the  office  of  criticism  is 
to  determine  which,  if  any,  is  right.  But  by  this  very 
act  it  contemplates  the  possibility  that  none  of  them 
are  right,  and  it  very  frequently  actually  determines 
that  the  most  documents  may  be  in  error.  How 
narrow  the  chance  that  has  preserved  for  us  the  true 
reading  in  all  those  cases  in  which-  we  adjudge  the 
palm  to  the  few  old  documents  as  against  the  many  ! 


206  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM. 

By  the  destruction  of  B  and  a  half-dozen  other  docu- 
ments we  should  destroy  all  extant  evidence  for 
several  quite  important  readings  which  we  now 
adjudge  right ;  and  in  all  these  readings  a  false 
reading  is  prevented  from  standing  in  all  texts  with- 
out variation  only  by  the  accident  of  the  preservation 
of  these  half-dozen  documents.  The  possibility  must 
be  frankly  confessed  that  other  false  readings  may 
stand  in  all  our  extant  documents.  So  that,  even 
where  there  is  no  variation,  criticism  is  still  necessary 
to  certify  to  us  that  the  text  is  free  from  error  or  to 
correct  it  when  in  error. 

Wherever,  therefore,  the  evidence  for  any  body  of 
variations  is  so  hopelessly  in  conflict  that  it  cannot  be 
harmonised,  and  in  all  that  part  of  the  text  on  which 
there  are  no  variations,  it  is  right  to  consider  the  text 
only  provisionally  determined,  and  to  subject  it  to 
further  criticism.  In  all  cases  of  variation  in  which 
the  evidence  is  in  ineradicable  conflict  the  high  pro- 
bability is  that  the  oldest  transmitted  text  is  itself  in 
error,  and  we  may  assume  that  here  is  a  case  that 
needs  further  criticism.  In  all  that  part  of  the  text 
on  which  there  are  no  variations  the  strong  presump- 
tion is  that  we  have  not  only  the  oldest  transmitted 
text  (which  is  certain,  since  it  is  identically  transmitted 
in  all  witnesses),  but  also  the  autographic  text :  but 
nevertheless  this  presumption  may  not  be  everywhere 
equally  well  grounded,  and  examination  is  necessary 
in  order  to  conviction.  Only  in  that  part  of  the  text 
which  has  been  settled  by  the  combined  and  har- 
monious testimony  of  all  kinds  of  evidence  may  we 
confidently  accept  it  as  the  autographic  text.     For, 


THE  PRAXIS  OF  CRITICISM.        207 

in  all  these  cases  alike,  the  only  evidence  that  is  valid 
— whether  to  discover  if  the  text  be  corrupt  where  no 
various  readings  occur,  or  to  suggest  the  right  reading 
wherever  we  know  or  suspect  it  to  be  corrupt — is 
internal  evidence ;  and  in  all  cases  where  the  text  has 
been  already  settled  on  the  harmonious  finding  of  all 
kinds  of  evidence,  this  has  already  spoken  and  has 
already  been  satisfied. 

Before  we  close  our   discussion   of    the   praxis  of 
criticism,  therefore,  we  must  explicitly  recognise  the 
legitimacy  and  duty  of  examining  the  text  of  the  whole 
New  Testament  with  the  most  scrupulous  care,  with  a 
view  to  discovering  whether  its  transmission  has  been 
perfect ;    and  of   appealing   to   internal   evidence   to 
suggest  and  settle  for  us  the  true  text  in  all  cases  of 
variation  where  the  evidence  is  hopelessly  in  conflict, 
and  in  all  cases  where,  in  the  absence  of  variation,  an 
examination  of  the  text  has  resulted  in  leading  us  to 
suspect  corruption.     It  is  evident  that  we  are  not  here 
calling  in  a  new  method  of  criticism  beyond  those 
enumerated ;  but  only  extending  the  practice  of  criti- 
cism a  step  further  than  we  had  need  to  go  in  the 
examples  which  we  have  adduced.     And  it  is  further . 
evident  that  the  validity  of  this  extension  is  involved 
in  any  use  of  internal  evidence  for  settling  readings 
at  all.     The  technical  name  given  to  this  extension  of 
criticism  is  ^'conjectural  emendation,"  which  is  meant 
to  describe  it  as  a  process  which  suggests  the  emenda- 
tion which  the  text  is  shown  either  by  the  presence 
of  irreconcilable  variations  or  by  internal  considera- 
tions  to   need,    from   the    conjecture   of    the   mind, 
working  on  internal  hints. 


c 


208  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

The  need  of  calling  upon  conjecture  to  aid  us  in 
determining  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  depends 
on  the  provable  presence  of  variations  the  evidence  as 
to  which  is  in  hopeless  conflict,  or  of  passages  which, 
while  without  variation,  are  clearly  corrupt.  In 
dealing  with  this  question  of  fact,  the  utmost  tact, 
good  judgment  and  candour  are  necessary.  Two  ex- 
tremes are  equally  to  be  avoided.  We  must  neither 
allow  ourselves  so  to  sharpen  our  acuteness  that  we 
discern  an  error  in  every  corner,  and  lose  the  power  to 
catch  the  plain  intent  of  a  plain  man's  plain  speech ; 
nor  must  we  so  blunt  our  minds,  by  attempting  to 
explain  as  correct  and  good  Greek  what  we  could  not 
tolerate  in  any  other  language,  that  no  amount  of 
evidence  can  convince  us  of  the  presence  of  a  textual 
error.  Licence  has  not  been  unknown  in  either  direc- 
tion. Some  critics  have  seemed  ready  to  cast  the 
whole  text  into  "  pie,"  and  set  it  up  again  to  suit  their 
own  (and  no  one  else's)  conceits.  Others  have  even 
savagely  guarded  each  fragment  of  the  transmitted  text 
as  if  the  scribes  had  wrought  under  Divine  inspiration. 
The  whole  matter  is  nevertheless  simply  a  matter  of 
fact,  and  is  to  be  determined  solely  by  the  evidence, 
investigated  under  the  guidance  of  reverential  and^ 
candid  good  sense.  The  nature  of  the  New  Testament 
as  a  Divine  book,  every  word  of  which  is  precious,  bids 
us  be  peculiarly  and  even  painfully  caref id  here  :  care- 
ful not  to  obtrude  our'crude  guesses  into  the  text,  and 
careful  not  to  leave  any  of  the  guesses  or  slips  of  the 
scribes  in  it. 

Drs.  Westcott  and  Hort  enumerate  in  their  edition 
some  threescore  or  more  passages  in  which  they  (or 


THE  PRAXIS  OF  CRITICISM.         209 

one  of  them)  suspect  that  a  "  primitive  error "  is 
found  in  the  text — i.e.,  an  error  older  than  our 
transmitted  text,  for  the  removal  of  which  we  are 
confined  to  conjectural  emendation.  Our  own  judg- 
ment would  greatly  reduce  this  number.  Without 
discussing,  however,  the  special  cases,  it  is  enough  for 
our  primary  purposes  to  lay  down  two  rules  of  action  : 

(1)  Critical  conjecture  is  not  to  be  emplo37-ed  in  settling 
the  text  of  the  New  Testament  until  all  the  methods 
of  criticism,  have  been  exhausted,  and  unless  clear 
occasion  for  its  use  can  be  shown  in  each  instance. 

(2)  No  conjecture  can  be  accepted  unless  it  perfectly 
fulfil  all  the  requirements  of  the  passage  as  they  are 
interpreted  by  intrinsic  evidence,  and  also  perfectly 
fulfil  all  the  requirements  of  transcriptional  evidence 
in  accounting  for  the  actual  reading,  and  if  variants 
exist  also  for  them  (either  directly  or  mediately 
through  one  of  their  number).  The  dangers  of  the 
process  are  so  great  that  these  rules  are  entirely 
reasonable,  and  indeed  necessary.  The  only  test  of 
a  successful  conjecture  is  that  it  shall  approve  itself 
as  inevitable.  Lacking  inevitableness,  it  remains 
doubtful. 

Few  as  the  passages  are  that  can  be  shown  to  need 
conjecture  to  settle  their  text,  the  passages  in  which 
successful  conjectures  have  been  made  are  still  fewer. 
Perhaps  no  absolutely  satisfactory  one  has  yet  been 
made.  The  best  examples  are  probably  two  on 
Col.  ii.  18,  one  by  Bishop  Lightfoot  and  the  other 
by  Dr.  C.  Taylor.  Instead  of  the  best  attested 
reading,  a  iopaKev  kix^arcviMv,  the  former  scholar 
proposes  ewpa  or  aluipa  Keve/^/JaretfOJi/,  which  is  attained 

14 


210  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

by  a  change  of  only  a  single  pair  of  letters,  eo  into 
160.  The  latter  scholar  proposes  depa  Kcve/x/JareuW, 
which  simply  omits  o.  In  such  matters  we  may  well 
listen  to  the  advice  of  the  Jewish  sage  and  "  be 
deliberate  in  judgment." 


CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  HISTORY   OF  CRITICISM, 

THE  history  of  the  earUer  periods  of  the  text  of  the 
New  Testament  is  naturally  enough  a  history  of 
progressive  corruption.  The  multiplication  of  copies 
was  the  chief  concern  of  an  ever-increasing  body  of 
readers;  and  though  we  early  hear  complaints  of 
corruption,  as  well  we  might  from  the  rapidity  with 
which  corruption  seems  to  have  grown,  and  from  the 
grossness  of  the  corruptions  which  found  their  way 
particularly  into  the  Gospels,  we  hear  of  little  serious 
effort  to  secure  a  correct  text.  Nevertheless,  the 
earliest  fathers  show  themselves  in  some  sense 
guardians  of  the  text,  and  ready  to  distinguish 
between  the  common  and  the  best  and  oldest  copies. 
The  autographs  of  the  sacred  writings  disappeared 
exceedingly  early,  and  an  Irenaeus  and  an  Origen 
were  already  \vithout  appeal  to  aught  but  the 
more  accurate  copies.  Already  by  their  time  the 
current  type  of  text  had  long  been  that  which  is  now 
known  as  the  Western,  and  which  attained  early  in 
the  second  century  the  position  and  circulation  of  a 
virtual  textus  recejytus,  and  retained  this  position  for 
about  two  centuries.  A  purer  and  more  carefully 
guarded  text  was,  nevertheless,  throughout  this  whole 


212  TEXTUAL   CPJTICISM. 

period  in  use  in  various  places,  apparently  most 
commonly  at  Alexandria,  where  also  in  one  line  of 
its  transmission  it  suffered  before  the  middle  of  the 
third  century  sufficient  deflection  from  the  absolute 
standard  to  give  rise  to  another  strongly  marked  type 
of  text — that  which  is  now  called  the  Alexandrian. 
Tradition  has  not  handed  down  to  us  account  of  any 
very  early  attempts  to  provide  a  standard  edition. 
Although  Jerome  tells  us  that  Origen  in  Palestine, 
Lucian  at  Antioch,  and  Hesychius  in  Egypt,  each 
revised  the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  as  well  as 
that  of  the  Greek  Old  Testament,  it  is  not  clear  how 
much  dependence  can  be  placed  on  this  statement, 
which  is  not  free  from  difiiculties.  The  scribes  give 
us  occasional  notes  which  betray  a  belief  in  the 
existence  of  something  like  a  standard  copy  in  the 
library  of  ''  the  holy  martyr  Pamphilus  "  at  Csesarea, 
conformity  with  which  was  the  norm  of  correctness ; 
but  of  this  we  know  nothing  but  this  fact.  Never- 
theless, the  more  unmistakable  evidence  of  the  textual 
remains  that  have  come  down  to  us  prove  that  at 
least  one  set  revision  of  the  text  was  made  in  Syria, 
and  probably  at  Antioch,  at  about  the  time  that  would 
fall  in  with  the  period  of  Lucian's  activity.  The 
object  of  this  revision, — the  earliest  attempt  to  issue 
a  critical  edition  of  the  New  Testament  text  of  which 
we  can  be  sure,  and  of  which  we  possess  documentary 
knowledge, — seems  to  have  been  to  furnish  for  the 
use  of  the  Syrian  churches  a  sounder  substitute  for  the 
very  corrupt  Western  text  which  had  for  so  long  held 
the  ground.  The  revision  was  well  done  for  the 
purpose  in  view  and  for  the  times.     It  is  an  honour 


TEE  HISTORY  OF  CRITICISM.        213 

to  the  scholarship  and  good  judgment  of  the  school  of 
Antioch,  and  presents  characteristics  quite  in  keeping 
with  the  exegetical  reputation  of  that  school.  It 
was  impossible  at  that  time  and  under  the  ruling 
views  of  criticism  to  form  a  sound  text ;  but  these 
scholars  succeeded  in  substituting  in  popular  use  for 
the  exceedingly  corrupt  textus  receptus  then  current,  a 
text  free  from  all  the  gross  corruptions  that  dis- 
figured it,  smooth  and  readable  in  structure,  and 
competently  exact  for  all  practical  purposes. 

The  Christian  world,  which  has  been  the  heir  of 
their  labours  for  a  millennium  and  a  half,  owes  a  debt 
of  thanks  to  a  superintending  Providence  for  the  good 
w^ork  done  thus  in  a  corner,  and  probably  with  only 
a  local  intent.  For  the  scholars  of  Antioch  were,  in 
God's  grace,  doing  a  greater  work  than  they  knew. 
Soon  the  persecutions  of  the  dying  heathenism  broke 
out  with  redoubled  fury,  and  everywhere  the  Christian 
books  were  sought  and  destroyed.  Then  came  Con- 
stantino and  the  Christian  empire,  established  with 
its  seat  on  the  Bosphorus.  Antioch  became  ecclesiasti- 
cally the  mother  of  Constantinople,  and  the  revised 
text  of  Antioch  the  ecclesiastical  text  of  the  centre 
of  the  world.  The  preparation  of  the  magnificent 
copies  of  Scripture  ordered  by  Constantino  for  the 
churches  of  Constantinople  was  intrusted  to  Eusebius 
of  Csesarea,  whose  afiiliations  w^ere  with  Antioch ;  and 
everywhere  the  Syrian  text  began  to  make  its  way. 
The  separation  of  the  Eastern  and  Western  Empires 
w^as  followed  by  the  separation  of  the  Eastern  and 
Western  Churches,  with  the  effect  of  confining  the 
use  of  Greek  to  narrower  limits,  and  giving  increased 


214  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

power  to  the  Constantinople  tradition  wherever  the 
Greek  Scriptures  were  used.  Though  some  serious 
alterations  were  suffered  by  it  in  the  process  of  time, 
it  was,  thus,  the  Constantinopolitan  text  that  became 
the  text  of  the  Greek  world,  and  with  the  revival  of 
Greek  letters  in  the  West,  under  the  teaching  of 
Byzantine  refugees,  of  the  whole  world.  How  the 
process  of  substitution  took  place  it  is  not  necessary 
to  trace.  Sometimes  it  was,  no  doubt,  by  direct 
importation  of  copies  from  the  capital.  At  others  it 
was  by  the  correction  of  copies  of  other  types  by 
Syrian  models,  which  secured  that  their  descend- 
ants should  be  Syrian.  Thus,  Codex  E  of  Paul  is 
largely  Syrian,  although  it  is  a  copy  of  the  purely 
Western  D;  and  thus,  too,  probably,  is  it  to  be 
explained  that  Codex  A  in  the  other  Gospels  is  Syi^iaii, 
while  in  Mark  it  remains  mostly  pre-Syrian.  The  great 
popularity  of  the  Antiochian  exegetes  and  of  the 
homilies  of  such  orators  as  Chrysostom  carried  with 
it  a  preference  for  their  text.  What  effect  on  this 
process  the  edition  of  Euthalius  had,  in  the  last  half 
of  the  fifth  century,  which  was  rather  a  handy 
edition  than  a  purified  text,  it  is  impossible  to  deter- 
mine. At  all  events,  traces  of  other  texts  became 
rarer  and  rarer  as  time  passed;  although  mixed 
texts  were  exceeding'ly  abundant  at  first,  even  these 
gradually  gave  way ;  and  throughout  the  middle  ages 
and  down  to  the  invention  of  printing  the  Syrian 
text  reigned  everywhere,  as  indisputably  the  received 
text  of  the  Church  universal,  as  the  Western  text 
had  been  from  the  second  to  the  fourth  century. 
The  passing  of  a  text  through  the  printing  press 


THE  HISTORY  OF  CRITICISM.        215 

has  no  tendency  to  revise  it.  The  first  printed  Greek 
Testament  was  that  included  in  the  "  Complntensian 
Polyglot,"  and  is  dated  1514.  But  as  its  issue  was 
delayed,  the  first  published  Greek  Testament  was 
Erasmus'  first  edition,  published  by  Froben,  at  Bale? 
in  1516.  Hurried  through  the  press  at  breakneck 
speed,  in  the  effort  to  forestall  the  "  Complntensian 
Polyglot,"  it  was  taken  from  late  and  almost  contem- 
porary manuscripts,  and  mirrored  the  state  of  the 
received  text  of  the  time.  It  bore,  indeed,  sundry 
printer's  boasts  on  its  title-page ;  but  its  editor  felt 
free  to  say  in  private  that  it  was  "  precipitatum 
verius  quam  editum."  The  ''Complntensian"  itself, 
when  it  did  appear  (1520),  proved  to  have  been  made, 
as  was  natural,  from  older  manuscripts  of  the  same 
type.  And  thus  the  printed  text  of  the  N'ew  Testa- 
ment simply  continued  the  history  of  the  written 
text,  and,  leaving  its  character  unchanged,  gave  it 
only  a  new  mode  of  reproduction. 

The  normal  history  that  is  worked  out  by  the 
printed  text  of  any  work  which  has  previously  been 
propagated  for  a  long  time  in  manuscript  is  something 
like  this  : — The  first  edition  is  taken  from  the  manu- 
scripts nearest  at  hand  ;  then  some  one  edition  gains 
such  circulation  and  acceptance,  usually  from  its  con- 
venience or  beauty,  as  to  become  the  standard,  and 
thus  also  the  received  text ;  and  then  efi'orts  are  made 
critically  to  restore  the  text  to  its  original  purity. 
Just  this  history  has  been  wrought  out  by  the  New 
Testament  text.  The  editions  immediately  succeeding 
those  of  Erasmus  differed  little  in  detail,  and  nothing 
in  type,  from  the  text  he  published ;  but  the  magni- 


216  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

licence  of  Stephens'  editio  regia  (1550),  and  the  con- 
venience and  beauty  of  the  small  Elzevirs,  especially 
those  of  1624  and  1633,  enabled  these  editions  to 
determine  the  standard  text,  the  one  for  English  and 
the  other  for  continental  readers.  Reverence  for  the 
Word  of  God,  perversely  but  not  unnaturally  exer- 
cised, erected  the  standard  or  received  text  into  the 
norm  of  a  true  text ;  and  al  though  preparations  for 
critical  editions  began  very  early,  and  were  seriously 
undertaken  by  the  editors  of  Walton's  "  Polyglot " 
(1657),  yet  many  years  passed  away  before  the  hard- 
ening bondage  to  the  received  text  could  be  shaken, 
and  it  was  not  until  1831  that  it  was  entirely  broken 
by  the  issue  of  Lachmann's  first  edition. 

The  history  of  the  editions  from  1657,  therefore, 
falls  into  two  periods  ;  the  one  containing  the  editions 
which  were  striving  to  be  rid  of  the  bondage  to  the 
received  text  (from  1657  to  1831),  and  the  other 
those  which  have  been  framed  in  conscious  emancipa- 
tion from  it  (from  1831  until  our  own  day).  During 
the  former  period,  the  task  men  set  before  them  was 
to  correct  the  received  text,  as  far  as  the  evidence 
absolutely  compelled  correction.  During  the  latter, 
the  task  has  been  to  form  the  best  attainable  text 
from  the  concurrence  of  the  best  evidence.  The  chief 
editions  of  the  former  period  wei-e  those  of  the 
Walton  "Polyglot,"  1657;  John  Fell,  1695;  John 
Mill,  1707  ;  Wells,  1709-19  ;  Bentley's  proposed 
edition,  1720;  Bengel,  1734;  Wetstein,  1751-2; 
Griesbach,  1775—1807  ;  Matthfei,  1782-88  ;  and 
Scholtz,  1830-36.  The  chief  editions  of  the  later 
period  have  been  those  of  Lachmann,  1831,  and  espe- 


THE  HISTORY  OF  CRITICISM.        217 

daily  1842-50  -,  Tischendorf,  1840-72,  especially  his 
eighth  critical  edition,  published  in  parts  from  1864 
to  1872;  Tregelles,  in  parts  from  1857  to  1879;  and 
Westcott  and  Hort,  1881.  In  one  way  or  another  the 
sequence  of  these  editions  marks  a  continuous  advance, 
although  in  special  points  an  eddy  now  and  then  sets 
backwards.  For  instance,  Wetstein,  Matthaei,  Scholtz, 
all  mark  a  retrograde  movement  in  principles  of 
criticism  and  in  the  text  actually  set  forth ;  but  each 
an  advance  in  the  collection  of  materials  for  framing 
the  text.  It  will  be  desirable,  therefore,  to  present 
the  history  of  criticism  briefly  under  four  heads,  in- 
cluding : — 

1.  The  collection  of  the  documentary  evidence  for 
the  text. 

2.  The  classification  of  this  ever-increasing  material. 

3.  The  formulation  of  critical  rules  for  the  applica- 
tion of  the  evidence  in  reconstructing  the  text. 

4.  The  actual  formation  of  the  text. 

1.  The  work  of  collecting  the  material,  heralded 
by  Stephens  and  Beza,  was  commenced  in  earnest  by 
"Walton's  "Polyglot"  (1657).  The  great  names  in 
this  work  include  those  of  Archbishop  Usher,  Bishop 
Fell,  Mill  (who  already  could  appeal  to  his  thirty 
thousand  various  readings),  Bentley,  and  those  in  his 
employment,  Wetstein  (who  mai-ks  an  advance  on 
Mill,  chiefly  in  accuracy  and  completeness,  comparable 
to  Mill's  advance  on  his  predecessors),  Mattha^i,  Bii-ch, 
Alter,  Griesbach,  Scholtz,  Tischendorf  (whose  editions 
of  MSS.  exceeded  in  number  aU  that  had  been  put 


218  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

forth  before  him),  Tregelles,  and  Scrivener,  with  whom 
may  be  also  named  Dean  Burgon.  Until  Tischen- 
dorf  s  labom-s  were  undertaken,  a  satisfactory  edition 
of  the  New  Testament  was  impossible,  if  for  no  other 
reason  than  insufficient  knowledge  of  the  testimony. 
Now,  practically  all  the  uncials,  and  a  large  body  of 
the  minuscules  are  accurately  known,  and  have  been 
included  in  the  digests.  j<  was  not  published  until 
1862;  no  satisfactory  edition  of  B  existed  until  1868  ; 
C,  Q,  D,  D,,  N,  P,  B,  Z,  L,  S,  E^,  P^,  %  have  all  been 
issued  since  1843.  %  was  not  discovered  until  1879, 
and  Ws  and  <l>  not  until  1881.  The  versions  are  not 
even  yet  critically  edited.  But  we  have  at  last  attained 
the  position  of  having  evidence  enough  before  us  to 
render  the  sketching  of  the  history  of  the  text  possible, 
and  to  certify  us  that  new  discoveries  will  only 
enlighten  dark  places,  and  not  overturn  the  whole 
fabric. 

2.  It  was  inevitable  that  in  the  first  youth  of 
textual  criticism  all  documents  should  be  treated  as 
practically  of  equal  value.  We  cannot  blame  Erasmus 
that  he  set  aside  the  only  good  MS.  he  had  because 
it  differed  so  much  from  the  others.  Nor  is  it  difii- 
cult  to  see  why  the  collations  of  Stephens  and  other 
early  editors  rather  ornamented  their  margins  than 
emended  their  texts.  By  Mill's  time  (1707),  however, 
enough  material  was  collected  for  some  signs  of  classi- 
fication to  be  dimly  seen.  Bentley  (1662 — 1742)  pro- 
fited by  his  hints,  and  perceived  the  great  division  line 
that  runs  between  the  old  and  the  late  codices — i.e. 
(speaking  generally),  between  the  pre- Syrian  and  the 
Syrian.      John   Albrecht  Bengel   (1687 — 1752)    was 


THE  HISTORY  OF  CRITICISM.        219 

the  first,  however,  to  do  a  great  work  in  this  depart- 
ment of  investigation.  His  acuteness  perceived  the 
advantages  of  a  genealogical  classification,  and  his 
diHgence  worked  out  the  main  outlines  of  the  true 
distribution.  Like  Bentley,  he  drew  a  broad  line  of 
demarcation  between  the  ancient  and  more  modern 
copies,  which  he  classed  under  the  names  of  the 
African  and  Asiatic  families.  And,  then,  he  made  the 
new  step  of  dividing  in  a  more  or  less  firm  manner  the 
African  family  itself  into  two  sub- tribes,  represented 
respectively  by  A  (the  only  purely  Greek  uncial  at 
that  time  in  use),  and  the  Old  Latin  version.  He 
held  the  African  class  to  be  the  more  valuable,  and  it 
was  a  critical  rule  with  him  that  no  reading  of  the 
Asiatic  class  was  likely  to  be  genuine  unless  supported 
by  some  African  document.  Semler  (1764)  followed, 
and  handed  down  Bengel's  classification  to  the  even 
greater  Griesbach  (1745—1812).  Griesbach  (1775  -f-) 
divided  all  documents  into  three  classes,  which  he 
called  respectively — 

(1)  The  Alexandrian,  represented  (in  the  Gospels) 
by  B  (except  in  Matthew,  where  he  deemed  it 
Western),  C,  L,  1,  33,  69,  Memphitic,  etc. ; 

(2)  The  Western,  represented  by  the  Grseco-Latin 
codices,  the  Old  Latin,  etc. ;  and 

(3)  The  Constantinopolitan,  represented  by  A,  E,  F, 
G,  H,  S,  and  the  minuscules  as  a  class,  etc. 

He  perceived  that  a  somewhat  dififerent  distribution 
was  needed  for  the  other  parts  of  the  ISTew  Testament 
(thus,  A  elsewhere  rose  to  the  height  of  Class  1 ) ; 
and   also    that  a  number   of    texts  occupied   inter- 


220  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

mediate  positions.  Classes  1  and  2  he  held  to 
present  texts  at  least  as  old  as  the  third  century ; 
Class  3  one  not  older  than  the  fourth  or  fifth.  A 
misunderstanding  of  the  meaning  of  the  phenomena 
of  mixed  texts  (shared  in  part  by  Griesbach  himself) 
did  much  to  prevent  this  theory  from  receiving  the 
acceptance  it  deserved,  though  it  obtained  the  hearty 
adherence  of  some  of  the  best  scholars  of  the  day. 
Hug's  (1808)  vagaries,  who  sought  to  prove  histori- 
cally that  three  texts  represented  respectively  by 
B  C  L,  E  R  minuscules,  and  A  K  M,  were  alike 
set  revisions  of  one  corrupt  text  represented  by  D 
and  the  Old  Latin,  which  was  universally  current  in 
the  second  century,  still  further  blinded  men  to  the 
value  of  these  classifications.  Hug,  however,  recog- 
nised the  three  classes  of  Griesbach  (though  trying 
unsuccessfully  to  add  a  fourth  to  them),  and  brought 
out  the  important  new  fact  of  the  early  broad  cur- 
rency of  the  Western  text.  And  his  publication  had 
the  good  effect  of  bringing  Griesbach  once  more 
before  the  public  (1811),  to  redemonstrate  the  main 
outlines  of  his  classification,  and  reiterate  his  mature 
conviction  that  on  the  study  of  "recensions,"  as  on 
a  hinge,  all  criticism  of  the  text  must  turn.  The 
peculiarities  of  Nolan  and  Scholtz  succeeded,  however, 
in  throwing  an  undeserved  discredit  on  such  studies, 
until  it  became  common  to  assert  that  no  divisions 
could  be  traced  among  the  documents,  of  any  practical 
utility  in  criticism,  except  the  broad  one  that  sepa- 
rates the  ancient  and  modern  copies  into  classes 
corresponding  to  Bengel's  African  and  Asiatic,  and 
Griesbach's   Alexandrian-Western    and    Constantino- 


THE  HISTORY  OF  CRITICISM.        221 

politan.  Tregelles  (1813-75),  by  his  method  of 
comparative  criticism,  redemonstratecl  this  distribu- 
tion, and  put  it  upon  an  invincible  basis  of  observed 
fact.  ISTevertheless  it  has  been  everywhere  practically 
acknowledged — by  writers  as  widely  separated  as 
Tregelles  and  Scrivener — that  the  farther  facts  of 
affiliation  brought  out  by  Griesbach,  although  not 
available  for  criticism,  yet  rest  on  a  basis  of  truth, 
and  further  that  the  documents  that  class  with  B  are 
greatly  better  than  those  that  class  with  D.  At  this 
point  Dr.  Hort's  investigations  (1881)  have  entered 
the  field,  with  the  result  of  justifying  Griesbach's 
general  conclusions,  and  so  adding  to  and  elucidating 
them  as  to  develop  a  usable  system  of  textual  criti- 
cism by  a  genealogical  method.  The  outlines  of  his 
conclusions  have  been  already  explained  under  the 
caption  "  Genealogical  Method  "  above. 

3.  The  continued  effi^rts  of  a  succession  of  scholars 
to  revise  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  necessarily 
issued  in  a  critical  practice,  and  a  critical  practice 
is  capable  of  being  formulated  in  critical  rules.  We 
can  mention  only  the  leaders  in  this  work.  It  was 
Bentley  (1720)  who  first  laid  down  the  great  prin- 
ciple that  the  whole  text  is  to  be  formed,  apart  from 
the  influence  of  any  edition,  on  evidence ;  a  principle 
which,  obvious  as  it  is,  only  succeeded  in  conquering 
universal  adoption  through  Lachmann's  example 
(1831).  It  was  due  to  Bengel  (1734)  that  transcrip- 
tional probability  received  early  recognition,  and  one 
of  its  great  generalisations  was  formulated  by  him  in 
words  that  have  become  classic :  "  proclivi  scriptioni 
prrestat  ardua,"  vv^hich,  beyond  doubt,  he  meant  in  a 


222  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

transcriptional  sense.  After  him  its  principles  have 
been  developed  by  many  critics,  especially  by  Gries- 
bach ;  and  more  latterly  they  have  been  carefully 
re-stated  by  Tischendorf,  Bishop  Ellicott,  and  Dr. 
Hort.  Intrinsic  evidence  has  never  lacked  its  often 
too  earnest  advocates;  some  have  pushed  it  to  the 
verge  of  subjecting  the  whole  text  to  re-writing 
according  to  the  personal  idiosyncrasies  of  the  editor, 
and  many  have  been  willing  to  give  it  occasionally 
overweening  powers.  Its  true  character  as  mainly 
negative,  and  its  true  uses,  have  been  lately  admirably 
elucidated  by  Dr.  Hort.  Since  Tregelles  (1854, 1856, 
1860)  the  suffrages  of  scholars  have  been  given  to  the 
doctrine  that  the  documentary  evidence  is  decisive  if 
at  all  capable  of  sure  interpretation,  so  only  that 
both  varieties  of  internal  evidence  of  readings  are 
not  arrayed  against  it,  or,  at  least,  that  intrinsic 
evidence  is  not  unalterably  in  opposition.  The  ten- 
dency has  also  been  ever  more  and  more  pronounced, 
since  Tregelles  developed  the  method  of  comparative 
criticism,  to  rely  on  the  ancient  evidence,  and  to 
count  its  witness  decisive  whenever  its  testimony  is 
undivided  or  nearly  so.  But  not  until  Dr.  Hort's 
"Introduction"  appeared  (1881)  was  a  sufficiently 
safe  procedure  indicated  for  all  those  cases  where 
ancient  evidence  is  itself  divided.  Dr.  Hort's  main 
canons  of  criticism  are  as  follows:  (1)  Knowledge  of 
documents  should  precede  final  judgment  on  read- 
ings; and  (2)  All  trustworthy  restoration  of  corrupted 
texts  is  founded  on  a  study  of  their  history.  By  the 
former  he  means  to  assert  the  necessity  of  attending 
to  a  carefully  weighed  external  evidence  before  we 


TEE  HISTORY  OF  CRITICISM.        223 

decide  on  readings,  and  to  exclude  thereby  crude 
appeals  to  internal  evidence  alone.  By  the  latter 
he  means  to  emphasize  the  necessity  of  understanding 
the  genealogical  affiliations  of  documents  before  they 
are  appealed  to  as  witnesses,  and  to  exclude  thereby 
crudely  allowing  each  document  equal  weight,  no 
matter  what  its  relation  to  the  autograph  may  be, 
as  well  as  allowing  each  document  weight  according 
not  to  its  purity,  but  to  the  chances  of  reproduction 
that  have  preserved  many  or  few  of  its  kindred. 

4.  No  satisfactory  text  could  be  formed  so  long  as 
editors  set  before  them  the  task  of  emending  the 
received  text,  instead  of  drawing  from  the  best  evi- 
dence the  best  attainable  text.  Not  until  Lachmann, 
therefore,  who  put  forth  in  1831  the  first  text  framed 
entirely  on  evidence,  can  we  expect  to  find  more  than 
efibrts  towards  a  good  text.  Nevertheless  much  that 
was  done  before  Lachmann  deserves  our  notice  and 
admiration.  The  Greek  Testament  of  Simon  Colinseus 
(1534)  may  be  considered  the  earliest  attempt  to  pre- 
pare what  may  be  called  a  critical  text  by  emending 
the  received  text  on  MS.  authority.  Edward  "Wells 
published  so  early  as  1709-19  a  text  emended  from 
the  Elzevir  type  in  some  two  hundred  and  ten  read- 
ings, the  most  of  which  have  been  commended  by 
later  critics.  And  Pdchard  Bentley  in  1720  proposed 
to  set  forth  an  edition  founded  on  ancient  authority 
only,  which,  had  he  completed  it,  would  have  ante- 
dated the  step  of  Lachmann  by  a  century.  Walton, 
Fell,  Mill,  Bengel  (except  in  nineteen  readings  in  the 
Apocalypse),  and  Wetstein,  did  not  venture  to  intro- 
duce new  readings  into  the  printed  text,  but  confined 


224  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

their  suggested  improvements  to  the  margin  and  notes. 
Griesbach  (1775 — 1807)  made  a  great  advance,  and  by 
the  acuteness  of  his  criticism  and  the  soundness  of  his 
judgment  did  all  that  could  be  done  at  his  day  and 
with  his  material  for  reforming  the  text.  No  text 
of  the  earlier  period  can  be  compared  with  his,  and 
his  accomplishment  with  his  insufficient  material  con- 
stitutes no  less  than  a  wonder  of  critical  skill.  But 
not  only  did  even  he  seek  to  emend  the  received  text, 
but  the  insufficiency  of  the  material  at  that  time 
within  reach  of  critics  would  alone  have  rendered 
the  formation  of  a  satisfactory  text  impossible.  The 
retrograde  movement  of  Matthsei  and  Scholtz,  who 
returned  to  the  received  text,  was  suddenly  reversed 
by  the  bold  step  of  Lachmann  (1831)  in  casting  off 
its  influence  altogether,  and  giving  the  world  for  the 
first  time  a  text  founded  everywhere  on  evidence. 
Lachmann's  actual  text  was,  however,  not  yet  satis- 
factory ;  both  because  of  the  still  continuing  insuffi- 
ciency of  evidence,  and  because  he  did  not  set  himself 
to  form  the  true  and  autographic  text,  but  only  an 
early  text,  current  in  the  fourth  century,  which 
should  serve  as  the  basis  for  further  criticism.  The 
use  which  has  sometimes  been  made  of  Lachmann's 
text,  therefore,  as  if  it  might  be  accepted  as  the 
earliest  attainable  text,  is  thoroughly  mistaken.  We 
cannot  go  further  back  than  the  texts  of  Tischendorf 
and  Tregelles  for  examples  of  what  criticism  has 
attained,  as  the  original  text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Tischendorf's  text  fluctuated  considerably  in 
the  various  editions  which  he  put  forth,  but  it  is 
unfair  to  judge  his  results  now  by  any  but  his  great 


THE  HISTORY  OF  CRITICISM.        225 

and  final  eighth  edition,  the  text  of  which  was  com- 
pleted just  before  his  death.  The  comparative  values 
of  the  three  great  modern  texts — the  eighth  edition  of 
Tischendorf  (1864 — 1872),  the  one  great  edition  of 
Tregelles  (1857 — 1879),  and  the  recently  issued  edition 
of  Westcott  and  Hort  (1881,  and  reissued  1885) — need 
hardly  be  discussed  here.  It  is  enough  to  set  down 
plainly  the  fact  that  these  three  editions  indicate  the 
high-water  mark  of  modern  criticism,  and  to  point  out 
that  they  agree  in  their  settlement  of  the  greater  part 
of  the  text.  Where  they  differ,  we  may  decide  now 
with  one,  now  with  the  other,  most  frequently  with 
the  latest :  and  in  these  comparatively  few  passages 
future  criticism  may  find  her  especial  task. 


Printed  by  Hazell,  Watson,  &  Viney,  Ld.,  London  and  Aylesbury, 

15 


Date  Due                        | 

■F-tl^l 

i^y 

9 

...     ITI 

.:       .     ■       ->;, 

^JjgPH^^*^' 

!M4 

i 

1 

1 

1 

1 

(!^ 

1 

